The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the UK withdrawal from the European Union Legal Continuity Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshaled list and revised supplement to the marshaled list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes after the first vote of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, there will be a voting period of one minute for the first vote in a group. Members who wish to speak in any debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call that group. We now refer to the marshaled list and I call amendment 14 in the name of Adam Tomkins grouped with amendments 14A and 49. Adam Tomkins to move amendment 14 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 14 in my name. It is imperative that Brexit, that is to say the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, does not inadvertently undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom as a union of four constituent nations. Indeed, Brexit should deepen and strengthen our precious union. The United Kingdom common frameworks that we know that we are going to need in areas such as agricultural support, public procurement, environmental protection and the like will, if they are designed properly, lead to a new post-Brexit era of shared government in the United Kingdom. With the United Kingdom government and the devolved administrations working together in the common interests of all of the nations of the UK, that is exactly as it should be. We know that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are going to become even more powerful as a direct result of Brexit. A whole suite of powers, all of which, by the way, the SNP Green Alliance would rather say no to and would rather hold in Brussels, will be coming here. These include but are in no sense restricted to aviation, carbon capture, marine environment, maritime energy, including renewable energy, flood risk, water quality, forestry, cross-border healthcare, roads, transport, voting rights and many others. My amendment seeks to ensure that the operation of these new powers does nothing to undermine, impede or restrict the operation of the United Kingdom domestic market as it operates now. Those last words are important. This amendment imposes no new restriction on either the Scottish Parliament or Scottish ministers. This amendment takes nothing away from either our legislative competence or from ministers' executive competence. My amendment seeks to define and understand our precious union or the domestic market broadly. Of course commerce and trade are at the heart of it. The free movement of goods, capital, services and labour. Free trade was the reason why the union was established 311 years ago in 1707 and it is the reason why Scotland has prospered in the three centuries since. It is not just about trade, our union is a social and cultural union too and again my amendment recognises this and seeks to protect all of that. Scottish Conservative amendments at stage 2 tried in a variety of ways to protect the union by making this bill subject to the European Union withdrawal act for example or by making it subject to the Scotland act or both. Are we fully expected the SNP Green Alliance to vote these amendments down as they will presumably seek to vote this one down today? That's par for the course. They don't believe in the union. They want to terminate it. The Scottish Labour Party voted with the SNP Green Alliance at stage 2 to defeat our union protecting amendments. Labour didn't want this bill to be subject to the Scotland act. They voted against that proposition. They didn't want this bill to be subject to UK legislation on Brexit. They voted against that proposition. They wanted exactly what the SNP wants, namely for this bill to give the nationalists licence to use Brexit as an excuse for undermining the union, chiseling away bit by bit at Scotland's right for place at the heart of the United Kingdom. Labour's amendment today to my amendment, amendment 14A, in the name of Neil Findlay, a member of the Parliament who couldn't even be bothered to turn up for any of the stage 2 debates, reinforces our view that the Scottish Labour Party is increasingly untrustworthy on the union. Mr Findlay's amendment time limits the requirement to act compatibly with the UK's domestic market to six months, or to the coming into force of a common framework, whichever is earlier. This hands the SNP a veto, with no checks and no balances. All they have to do is to hold out for six months, refusing to sign up to any UK common framework, and thereafter they are free to act in any way they like, quite regardless of the UK's legitimate interests in preserving its market integrity. For a nationalist, no problem. But what a so-called party of the union is doing, putting such a reckless proposition to the Scottish Parliament, I have no idea, and we will not be supporting it. Finally, Mr Findlay gets to speak in this debate and I look forward to hearing how he is going to justify, one, his refusal to turn up at stage 2, and two, his amendment to my amendment, and I will respond to his points when I sum up. Finally, Presiding Officer, in this group is amendment 49 in the name of Tavish Scott, and we will be supporting this amendment. The power to keep pace with European law post Brexit provided for in section 13 of this bill is an extraordinary power. Indeed, it is an extraordinary power grab by Scottish ministers, and Tavish Scott's amendment 49 is an important and valuable constraint on its exercise. I commend the amendment in my name and the amendment in Tavish Scott's name, both of which we will be voting for, but we will not be supporting Labour's attempt to shore up the nationalist ambitions to use Brexit to undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom. Neil Findlay to move amendment 14A and speak to all amendments in the group. I wonder if, before I move the amendment, if I could ask the minister to take a few minutes to advise Parliament what his intentions are should clause 11 of the EU withdrawal bill be amended in the House of Lords, and the Government then has to bring forward legislation here to repeal this bill. What happens to all of the amendments on the environment, animal rights, human rights and so on, the protections that we have put in? Will there be another process for us to incorporate them into law? Will they be cast aside in a process that, to many people, may have looked like a political game and a waste of time? I think that it is incumbent on the cabinet secretary to advise Parliament both now and all members of this Parliament in writing what would happen in that scenario. Finally, how will this Parliament scrutinise any deal that may come forward between the Scottish and UK Governments and indeed the Welsh Government so that we can examine this in this Parliament? I am happy to say to Mr Findlay that I recognise the importance of the point that he is raising. There are elements in this bill, for example, the protections on environment, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the issues in employment that Labour has brought forward, which are different from the EU withdrawal bill in the UK and may require, if those circumstances prevail, to have further legislation. I commit myself to two things. One is to consultation with other parties on how we can protect those if we reach those circumstances. If the member will also write to me about that, I will expand on that to try to find the areas in the bill in which we can find agreement on that and to ensure that, in the event—it no means a certain event—in the event that the bill does not proceed because of an agreement in the UK, we are able to provide those protections, which are extremely important. Alan Miller, for example, said that Professor Alan Miller indicated earlier this week that he thought that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the position that we were taking here was a far better position, as is in staff on environment and other things. I will commit myself to consulting with parties, I will commit myself to responding to the member and I will commit myself to finding a way to do so should we require to do so. I also asked the minister about scrutiny of any deal that is brought forward. How does he intend to provide Parliament with that opportunity also? I have people who have said that we will provide that opportunity for scrutiny of any deal. Nothing will be agreed unless the chamber will agree to it. Neil Findlay. 14A seeks to amend the Tory Reckon amendment. It is our view that any Brexit legislation must take account of and meet the needs of the different nations and regions of the UK in respect to devolution settlement. As such, it is of great importance that any steps to protect the UK's domestic market are not seen as being at the expense of devolution or incompatible with it. 14A is unacceptable for two reasons. It places no timeline on the restrictions being proposed and seeks to make the restrictions exclusive to Scotland's government. It is in the interests of both the rest of the UK and Scotland that equality is achieved between the regions of the UK in regards to this process. I propose my amendments as a means to address that and ensure that reciprocal arrangements are put in place. We must ensure that other Governments within the UK have an equivalent commitment that will last until common frameworks are agreed. After that point, it would no longer be necessary that this process would ensure the intent of amendment 14 while making it effective and in line with the spirit of devolution. If the Tory amendment was passed, policy innovation might be curtailed, as any Scottish Government would be prevented from deviating from practices elsewhere in the UK, practices that are deemed to distort the UK market. For example, we could not introduce public health levies, we could not introduce the smoking ban, the plastic bag tax. This would go against the spirit of devolution and the interests of our people and our democracy. We will not also not be supporting the Tavish Scott amendment as we believe that the existing wording is more appropriate. Mr Finlay has missed the point of the amendment 14 in my name, which is that it protects the domestic market as it operates before exit day. All of the examples that he gave are examples of devolution that worked before exit day and they would continue to work with devolution after exit day. I absolutely do understand the amendment. What Mr Tomkins does not understand is that any of those initiatives could not happen in the future. Similar initiatives could not happen. Mr Tomkins, when he was in one of the other many political parties that he has been in over the peace, I am sure agreed with devolution during those times, but now he is in the Tory party's party, he just does what his paymasters tell him. I think that we can try and keep the discussion to the issues at hand rather than individuals. Tavish Scott to speak to amendment 49 and others in the group. I sense there's more politics today than there was last week in stage 2. I move 49 in this group. The continued operation of the UK single market is important to businesses and individuals in Scotland after exit day. New powers are being allocated around the administrations of the UK. Extensive order making powers are being proposed for ministers in all of those administrations and in many cases there are the same powers being exercised in four different places at the same time. Every party in this chamber believes that there should be UK frameworks. The Scottish Government is constantly appalled that it has not been consulted properly. So my amendment today encourages Parliament to make sure that Scottish ministers lead by that very example, that ministers consider the impact of their proposals on the operation of the UK single market. This amendment will be the way to get reference to the importance of that market onto the face of the bill. Stage 2, Adam Tomkins moved amendments to create protected fields where the UK minister would have the power of veto on Scottish ministerial action. That put the UK ministers judge durian executioner on policy areas that everyone agrees should be part of a UK wide framework. I would argue that if the four administrations are cooperating then it shouldn't be for one of them acting alone in this case just UK ministers to veto proposals. If the intention of Adam Tomkins today is to protect the operation of the UK single market then it is a natural extension to support Neil Findlay's further amendment that makes it clear that all four administrations should be given equivalent and reciprocal commitments. Parliament has a lot of time for Adam Tomkins and his background and knowledge as a professor of constitutional law, I certainly do, but today he seeks to insert a section into a bill before even the introductory section which sets out the purpose of the bill itself. That strikes me as pretty close to parliamentary showboating. Mr Tomkins is a serious lawmaker but he should not move an amendment such as this in this area and I move 49 on that basis. I apologise, I said that we wouldn't be supporting the amendment. We will be supporting that one. After last week's 11 hours I hadn't really intended to speak in this debate but having sat down and read more closely Adam Tomkins' amendment I thought that I really had to get to my feet and make a few points. Normally Adam Tomkins knows I fully respect his position in regards to the way he makes an argument and puts across his point. We work very closely together on issues around clause 11 but I believe his amendment today is an attempt to put this Scottish Government in any future Scottish Government in a policy box and restrict its choices. It might not be the means act but if you look at in particular 3A in his amendment it is a very wide power, an open to very wide interpretation. For the purpose of this act the exercise of any power is to impede or obstruct the great and kindle domestic market but is not limited to and making of any enactment. That's a very wide power to give any future UK Government but it gets worse. That would result in any unregulated divergence material damaging to the ability of individuals, corporations, entities based in Scotland to trade or contract etc. That's a very wide power, yes surely? Adam Tomkins Very grateful to Mr Crawford for his forgiving way and indeed for his kind words. This bill is called a continuity bill. The opening words of my amendment as Mr Crawford will have noticed are to seek to preserve the operation of the domestic market in the United Kingdom post Brexit as it operates now pre-Brexit so that there is continuity between the situation now and the situation in the future. There is no more, no less. There is no greater ambition in this amendment than that. It is fully consistent with the purposes or the alleged purposes of this legislation which are to provide for continuity. Will Mr Crawford not accept that? Bruce Crawford I take Adam Tomkins at his word because that's the sort of guy I am but I don't often agree with Neil Findlay, I don't think I've ever agreed with him before actually but on this one Neil Findlay is right. This is not just about what's gone before, it's also about what this place can do in future and had we had not in place the minimum pricing, no smoking legislations, changes to future income tax even rates The Tories argue that in some way Scotland undermines our relationship with the rest of the Kingdom right now, before we even have this legislation, differential support and agriculture which already exists but probably couldn't exist in future if this amendment were to pass. Business rates can be set different business rates which should impact differently from the rest of the UK. Landfill tax which may be different, we've chosen not to at this stage but we may in future choose to make it a different level or the land and buildings tax, that could well be diverted from in the future. Those are all areas where the Tories have argued that these policies are damaging to Scotland and damaging to the internal market and potentially in future when if we do leave the European Union, I hope we don't but if we do in these circumstances there may well be an argument that Scotland should have power in future over VAT because it's only the European Union legislation that stops us having power over that VAT. If Scotland was to decide to have a different rate on VAT to the rest of the UK, potentially this amendment would undermine this Parliament's ability to do that. I understand Adam Tomkins' ability. He wants to stop undermining the UK and internal market. I think that he's flawed in that argument but I believe that his amendment either inadvertently or deliberately undermines the devolution settlement. Adam Tomkins is very good and plausible at putting across his arguments but I think that on this amendment he has been, yes, I'll give way. Neil Findlay. Just wonder what the Tory argument would be if this was in relation to local government and they tried to restrict it. The first people saying that centralisation of power. Come may this year I'll have been elected for 30 years. I know I'm beginning to look like it in one way or another. I've seen a lot of vault faces from the Tories, particularly in local government, and the way they stand up for local government now and the fig leaf they put around themselves on that is in stark contrast to the future, to the past way they have behaved as far as local government's concern. I believe that Adam Tomkins is always very good at sounding plausible but his amendment I think on this occasion he's been found out and I would encourage the chamber to vote against it. Patrick Harvie to be followed by Peter Chapman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There's a phrase, an accusation, which is sometimes levelled at those of us who support the idea of Scottish independence but I think on this occasion is Adam Tomkins who needs this accusation levelled at him. He's stoking constitutional grudge and grievance. I think that's the basis of what he's trying to do with his amendments. I can't support any of the amendments in this group, Presiding Officer. I want to address first of all, of the lot of them the most reasonable, at least on the surface level, is that it comes from Tavish Scott about an assessment, a statement making an assessment of the impact of a draft instrument on the operation of the single market. I do think we need some kind of clarity about whether we talk about a single market, an internal market, a domestic market or what that language really represents but it might be thought reasonable that an assessment be made about the impact of a draft instrument. The implication even of that is that it is the Scottish position proposed by a Scottish Government and endorsed presumably by a Scottish Parliament that would create regulatory divergence. If regulatory divergence takes place it is the result of multiple positions which are not all the same. To blame one aspect of that rather than the other, to say that divergence, if it happens, is because of a Scottish instrument instead of a UK instrument applying elsewhere. I just think that it's an unrealistic assessment to make to say that a Scottish draft instrument is entirely responsible or what proportion of the divergence is accountable to the Scottish instrument as opposed to the other measures elsewhere. I think that Mr Harvey makes an entirely fair point, which is why the amendment that we look at involves all the Administrations and Governments of the United Kingdom to deal with exactly the point that he's just making. Amendment 49 merely places an expectation on Scottish ministers to make a statement on their assessment of the impact of their draft instrument. I still think that Scottish ministers in fulfilling that obligation will find an impossible task to disentangle what proportion of any divergence is a result of actions being taken in Scotland. Fundamentally the argument goes deeper though with the first two amendments and in particular with Adam Tompkins' amendment. I think that all of us accept that common frameworks will be necessary in some areas, whether in respect of current devolution, post Brexit devolution if indeed that happens, or even if we were one day, oh happy day, developing the same relationship with our neighbours that other independent countries have with one another. Common frameworks would probably still be necessary but common frameworks must be based on consent and consent must be active, it must be entirely voluntary and it can be withdrawn at any time. To pass legislation which restricts our ability to withdraw consent to a common framework would be entirely at odds with that basic principle. It's a principle that I think those of us who support independence should be concerned about. It's also a principle that I think those of us who believe in the union, in the strengthening and preservation of that union should also be concerned about. Because if there is going to be any approach at delivering genuine common frameworks with genuine consent and assent and affirmation on all sides then I think that Adam Tompkins is going the wrong way about it. Peter Chapman, to be followed by Johann Lamont. I will be brief and I will declare an interest as a farmer because my example is about farming. To be honest, I can't understand why any member of the chamber could possibly vote against this amendment in the name of Adam Tompkins. I also support Davish Scott in his amendment 49. In my particular industry, namely farming, the UK single market is absolutely vital to our farmers. Just to give you one example, we export over 80 per cent of our beef and 90 per cent of that goes to England and it receives a premium in that market. Any restrictions on that trade would be disastrous for our farmers. Farmers are only one example. All Scottish trade depends to a large extent on the single UK market. It's equally important for all our traders that the single UK market is protected. I would therefore expect wide support for this amendment in Adam Tompkins' name. Johann Lamont I want to make two brief points. I was aware of the briefing done around the amendment. Like many other people in the chamber, I have full respect for Professor Tompkins. I have to say that I found his contribution utterly depressing. I thought that it served his party rather than serving the serious debate that we are having in the chamber just now. The idea that the problem that we have to wrestle with just now is whether Neil Findlay attends a committee meeting or not is not appropriate. I would say to Professor Tompkins and to other people who are considering supporting his amendment that the biggest strength of the United Kingdom is that the people of Scotland see their friends across the borders of people they wish to work with, co-operate with. They don't see them as folk that they want to separate from. That is the strength of the United Kingdom. It is when the people of Scotland see in that United Kingdom that they are stronger and not weaker. I wouldn't say that we should see this as some kind of litmus test as a commitment to the United Kingdom. The second point that I want to make is really to ask further to comments made by Neil Findlay to the minister. I appreciate that we are dealing with stage 3 amendments, but I would be grateful if he responded to this. It took us two years in his parliament to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. The plan seems to be that if we can get a deal with the UK Government, we will repeal this legislation right away. I think that that undermines the integrity and the work that has been done on this bill over the last few weeks. I would look for a commitment from the minister. First of all, he is already in discussions with the parliamentary authorities and party leaders about the scenario where a deal is reached. First, to ensure that there is full scrutiny of what that deal is. Secondly, there is a full and detailed opportunity by the committees of this Parliament to look at how the bill has changed the landscape, because it is no longer where we were at the beginning of the process when emergency legislation was first mooted. I think that it is about the credibility of this Parliament that we do not take weeks. We give people huge amounts of work to do to look at amendments and produce legislation only to turn around after a statement from the minister and say that it is okay that we will repeal the legislation. I would be grateful if he could indicate that, while he is summing up on the amendment, what his plans are to take that forward. I call Minister Michael Russell. I addressed that point immediately because I have addressed it with Neil Findlay, but I am happy to do so with Johann Lamont. I do appreciate, and I will talk about this later, the work that has been done in scrutinising this legislation and the work of all parties. I say that all parties have improved this legislation. That will be clear this afternoon, but it is clear how many amendments from all sides of the chamber we have accepted to approve the legislation. Quite clearly, there would need to be scrutiny in the circumstances in which the Government would have come to this chamber and to say under this bill, and there is a provision in this bill, which again has been changed during the process to say that we do not wish to proceed with it. The second point is that, yes, I accept that this bill has changed the landscape. I hope that it has done it positively because we have pointed to, for example, areas in which there needs to be change in divergence, for example, in the protection of environmental principles, which we have moved forward as a result of hard work from a number of members. I pay tribute to them, including Claudia Beamish, Tavish Scott and Mark Ruskell. They have all been involved in that process. Issues on protection and reporting employment and rights issues, which Neil Bibby, James Kelly and Neil Findlay have been engaged with. Later, we will consider an amendment under health, which Anna Sarwar has been engaged with. There have been areas in which we have improved issues that we have raised. I give the same commitment that I gave to Neil Findlay. We will come back to this chamber. We will discuss with the other parties. We will see the ways in which we can take those things forward. I am happy to do so in response to Neil Findlay who agreed to write him in this issue. I will sit down with him and talk those things through. We will come back to the chamber with recommendations. I have to say that those amendments are thought provoking. In the case of Professor Tomkins, the thought provoker is not entirely positive. I have to say that the idea that Mr Findlay and I would unite happily as the boogies in favour of independence is so unlikely as to be the work of fantasy. I do not often fantasise about Mr Findlay. Indeed, I hope that that first time does not arise. In those circumstances, that is a ludicrous argument. It is important to say this, because this amendment comes from a professor of constitutional law. This amendment is littered with undefined and imprecise concepts. You ask yourself why that would be, why a professor of constitutional law would come to this chamber with an amendment that cannot possibly operate. Could it possibly be because he wants this amendment to be a blockage to the operation of this bill? I simply ask the question. The meaning, for example, of single market, which appears in the heading, but not in the body of the amendment, would be contested. There is a precise meaning for the EU single market. There is no definition of the meaning for a UK single market, because indeed it is not the right term. There is an internal market, but it is not a single market within the European definition. Do we want the lawfulness of regulations to be dependent to take another example of whether a court considers that they impede, and I quote, cultural activity and behaviour? I am sure that not even my distinguished friend, the culture secretary, would endeavour to define that in a way that courts would be happy with. That is imprecise language, but the intention is precise enough. If that is, as it may well be, the manifesto for making Ruth Davidson the First Minister in 2021, it is absolutely clear what the Tories want to do. The Tories want to make every action of this chamber subject to a decision by the UK Government, every action of this chamber. If that is a manifesto, then I think that the only thing that Ruth Davidson will go on winning is a great British bake-off. The amendment is also unnecessary. Since, as Tavish Scott indicated, every party in this chamber, including the Scottish Government, is seeking the agreement on frameworks that would support the highly integrated markets that exist across the UK. Mr Harvey is right. Even in the case of independence, there would be a requirement and a need to have frameworks operating so that we move forward in a way that is productive for all of us. That is one of the principles that we agreed with the UK and Welsh Governments, since we began discussing those frameworks. There is regrettably only one Government in these islands seeking to separate itself from a single market, and it is not this one. The minister alluded to the point that I was about to make, because he agreed that if we were eventually to be embarked upon a course to independence, we would in no way wish to impede the freedom of movement of people throughout these islands in the way that those in the UK Government wish to impede freedom of movement throughout Europe. I entirely agree with that, because freedom of movement is not only productive and helpful. It is essential for a whole range of the sectors within Scotland, and impeding freedom of movement in that way will be very destructive. Let me turn to Mr Finlay's amendment. I think that it is made in the right spirit. It agrees with the issue of equity, which is important. It is very tempted to have the opportunity to vote twice against the Tory amendment. I want to support Mr Finlay, and I want to vote against the whole thing, but I have to sit on and say that temptation, but I am not going to recommend it to the chamber. This bill is not the place to resolve the questions facing these islands about the complexities of governance after Brexit should it take place. The place to resolve those questions is at the negotiating table between Governments and in putting those agreements to the Parliament across the UK. Last year, the Welsh Government, I missed that point for Mr Finlay, I take an intervention. Minister Finlay says that without any hint of irony whatsoever, we want you to get back to the negotiating table and get things sorted out, so get the A. Minister Michael Russell. I spend most of my life at the negotiating table as does his friend and colleague Mark Drakeford, and I am very happy to do so again, because I was about to say that last August the Welsh Government put forward a set of proposals in terms of adjusting the governance in these islands. They came up with new ideas. I was very enthusiastic about those should be discussed. I have to say that nothing has happened. Indeed, I want to mention this afternoon in the House of Lords that there is a consideration of the devolution clauses in the withdrawal bill. There is an amendment from Lord Mackay of Clashfarn, who I have to say I have had the great privilege of discussing these issues within recent days. I know that he will also say the same in the House of Lords this afternoon. I do not agree with those amendments entirely, but he too is tackling the issue of how there should be different relationships and whether there should be some sort of council of ministers for the islands. Even distinguished, thoughtful Tories, real experts in the matters of constitutional politics, are looking at how those things should be adjusted. I cannot recommend supporting either the amendment from Professor Tomkins nor, unfortunately, the one from Mr Finlay. In any event, the bill is about what needs to happen if we cannot come to an agreement. I have been clear from the beginning that we will seek its repeal. If we come to an agreement approved by the chamber and I make that point, provision in the bill could never bring about that agreement. Finally, let me turn to Tavish Scott's amendment. How could we be tied in the use of our powers in the bill to that concept of the single market in goods and services in the UK if there is no definition of the single market in goods and services? In any case, there is already divergence. For example, if we look at ending the minimum price for alcohol, there is a divergence. If you were to apply a definition of the single market as it appears to exist, though it does not exist in the UK, but if you were to apply it, then we would already be in breach of that in some of the issues. Indeed, when we come to issues such as environmental protection later, issues such as employment protection, then we would have to find ourselves in considerable trouble. I have to say that I understand what he is trying to do, but I think that it will, unfortunately, not be possible to do it. I say that it is somebody who admires the way in which amendments from Tavish Scott have actually had a greater rate of success than almost any set of amendments at stage 2. On that occasion, I cannot accept that. This bill is about asserting the Parliament's right to legislate. At the heart of the amendment from Adam Tomkins is abdicating this Parliament's right to legislate. We cannot support it now and we would never support that. I therefore recommend that the chamber votes against the amendments in this group. Adam Tomkins will wind up on amendment 14. I think that it is important to start with an understanding of why it is important to protect the union going forward post Brexit. It is important not only for the United Kingdom but for Scotland. Scotland trades more than four times as much with the rest of the UK as it does with the whole of the EU. The Labour Party sometimes talks about having a jobs first Brexit. More than four times as many jobs in Scotland's economy depend on trade with the rest of the UK than depend on trade with the whole of the European Union. That is why it is imperative that, right at the top of the Brexit process, we in Scotland combine together to protect Scotland's rightful place at the heart of the United Kingdom, at the heart of the union. That is what this amendment seeks to do. No more and no less. Of course, it is in general terms. That is why it belongs at the beginning of an active Parliament rather than buried somewhere in the middle of it. It is criticised by some people for putting this amendment too soon in the bill and criticised by others for not putting it soon enough. It is a continuity bill, and it is a continuity provision in a continuity bill. I notice that Mr Crawford was completely incapable or perhaps unwilling to respond to my rather elementary point, I thought, that this is a provision that will change nothing. It is a provision that will simply safeguard that which needs to be safeguarded after Brexit. There is no element of this amendment that would make impossible or unlawful or illegal or difficult any kind of smoking ban, any kind of differentiated tax rates between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom if the amendment is read and understood in good faith, but not all of the contributors had sought to read it in that light. I thought that Mr Finlay's contribution was absolutely extraordinary for two reasons. One, he said that he couldn't support this amendment because it focused on Scottish ministers. This whole act, this whole bill focuses on Scottish ministers. That is entirely its problem. It is an act of the Scottish Parliament that empowers Scottish ministers, not ministers of the Crown, not Welsh ministers, nobody in Northern Ireland, but Scottish ministers to do any number of huge and extraordinary things post Brexit, none of which we should be permitting. The other extraordinary thing that Mr Finlay said was that he wanted to put a time limit on the extent to which this Parliament protects the union. I don't want to put a time limit on the extent to which this Parliament wants to protect the union. The union has endured for three centuries and it should endure for three more. I don't want to put a clock on that. It's extraordinary that Mr Finlay, representing the Scottish Labour Party, wants to time limit the protection that this Parliament gives to the union. Neil Findlay, to wind up on amendment 14A, if you want to wind up. I have nothing to add in. I think that we made our position very clear. Both speeches have shown him up for what he has. He is clearly just someone who takes his orders from the Prime Minister's office. I have nothing to add. The Tories, trying to depict themselves as the champions of devolution, have been shown up today and shown up for everything that they are. The question is that amendment 14A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote, but because it's the first vote of the day, there'll be a five-minute suspension to allow members to make sure that they're in the chamber. We'll resume, and we'll start with the vote. The question is that amendment 14A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. In that case, we'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now, and this is a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 14A, in the name of Neil Findlay, is yes, 28, no, 100. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Adam Tomkins, to press or withdraw amendment 14. The question is that amendment 14A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is yes, 31, no, 97. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 2, and I call amendment 18, in the name of Donald Cameron, in a group on its own. Donald Cameron, to speak to and move amendment 18. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Less than a month ago, you stated your view that the bill falls out with the legislative competence of this Parliament. That statement was explicit and unequivocal. In the last three weeks in which this legislation has been rushed through, at times we have lost sight of that hugely significant point. However, the fact remains that, for the first time in the history of this institution, the Scottish Government has proceeded in defiance of you, the Presiding Officer, and your express view that the bill is out with the scope of our powers. This is an historic moment. If the bill passes into law, Parliament will be rubber stamping legislation in direct contradiction of the very person, in fact the only person who is compelled, not just asked but compelled to give their view on legislative competence. That concept has been said to lie at the heart of the scheme of devolution to which the act gives effect, the Scotland act, that is. Anything outside competence is not law, and here we are turning that scheme, that carefully calibrated scheme, on its head. Presiding Officer has given one reason why the bill is outside competence. At stage 2, we provided other examples. We referred to section 33 and schedule 1 of the bill, and we also referred to section 17, 2 of the bill, which represent instances in our view that are outside legislative competence. Presiding Officer, my amendment 18 attempts to assist the Government. In section 1, which is an overarching provision dealing with the purpose and effect of the bill, my amendment would provide a safety mechanism that would protect the Government and save it from itself. It would ensure that the bill will not provide Scottish ministers any powers that could be used in a way that contradicts the Scotland Act 1998, and specifically section 29 of that act, which makes provision for the legislative competence of the Parliament. That bill is hold below the waterline in many places in terms of legislative competence. My amendment provides a legal lifeboat for the Government, and I urge the minister to swim for it. We believe that this is an unnecessary and unworkable amendment. As Mr Cameron knows, the Parliament cannot legislate in contrast to the Scotland Act 1998. Therefore, his amendment is unnecessary. For that simple reason, we do not support his amendment. The Tory obsession with boats is rather interesting today. We have had a Tory MP for Aberdeen South throwing fish from a boat in the Thames. Now we have Donald Cameron urging me to get into the water and swim towards the Tories. I will resist that blandishment. This is regrettably another amendment from the Scottish Conservatives, which is ostensibly directed at making provision on the face of the act for the Scottish Parliament that ministers must act with involved competence. It is actually an amendment to try and tell us to behave ourselves. We discussed a range of similar amendments at stage 2 in the bill. The reasons for rejecting this amendment are in line with the reasons that I gave at stage 2 of the bill, and Mr Finlay has indicated one of those. All those amendments from the Tories were rejected during the bill, and I urge members to reject that. The issue of the legislative competence of the bill has been given a very full airing in the scrutiny process that we have been engaged in. Moreover, the Scotland Act makes specific provision for the situation that we are in. We are satisfied that the bill is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament for the reasons set out by the Lord Advocate. I want to make some progress. There is no need to put in this bill or any other bill, provisions that say that ministers must exercise their powers according to the Scotland Act. We are doing so. There is no question of ministers being able to use those bars in a way that does not accord with the devolution settlement. This is a legal constraint. I have heard this argument put at several occasions in stage 2, and we do not need to put it again because it was resoundly defeated at stage 2. In fact, I believe only the Conservatives back this at stage 2, and I presume that that is where we will be in a moment on this. There is a legal constraint that applies on Scottish ministers whenever they exercise any powers under an act of this Parliament. The Scotland Act tells us what is and is not within competence. We would not support lettering the statute book with unnecessary provisions of this nature, which are, as I say, designed only to remind this Government of what the Tories want us to do. Donald Cameron to wind up. Do you press or withdraw the amendment? I press the amendment, Presiding Officer. Given the cavalier attitude of the Scottish Government to the concept of legislative competence, this amendment remains completely necessary. The Scottish Government has very real, very grave problems with legislative competence in terms of this bill, and my amendment would allow them to exercise powers in a way that is within competence and, in a manner conversant with the devolution settlement, I move it and I ask for support. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members will cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 18 in the name of Donald Cameron is yes, 31, no, 97. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 3, a call amendment 15, in the name of Tavish Scott in a group on its own, and Tavish Scott to speak to and move amendment 15. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 15 toughens up the may have regard to in the bill and provides a more serious test, which gives clearer guidance for retained EU law. The amendment proposes that courts and tribunals must have regard to future European judgments where relevant to their considerations. The Scottish court retains the right to assess the significance of such judgments. If the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU has said there will be close regulatory alignment between the EU and the UK, as many of us hope there will be, a court or tribunal in Scotland would be encouraged by this clause to pay close attention to the determined meaning of the EU regulation. The amendment means that it is perfectly acceptable for a court or tribunal having been guided to consider EU judgments to decide that none has significant relevance to the matter before it. My amendments today will help courts to understand exactly what is expected of them, and we are helping the event that the UK has a relatively good withdrawal agreement with the EU on regulatory alignment. I am grateful to the minister for his suggestions on how to improve the wording of this amendment that was tabled at stage 2, and on that basis, Presiding Officer, I so move. As Tavish Scott says, his amendment relates to group 3 on the status of judgments in the European Court and its impact post-exit day.  However, at the same time, he introduces a relevance test. As such, he still leaves the option open for consideration by the court. Therefore, I do not believe that Tavish Scott's amendment has any great material impact in relation to the current drafting of the bill. As such, we are content with the current wording. I welcome the amendment. As Tavish Scott said at stage 2, it was raised by Mr Scott. We understood the point and thought that there was an importance in tightening up the amendment. It would give a clear steer to courts and tribunals about their obligation to have regard to decisions of the court of justice where those decisions are relevant. It would, importantly, retain the court's discretion in this regard, which I think is the material issue that Mr Akelle is addressing, but it does improve the situation because it can apply the duty in a flexible and proportionate way. For that reason, I would recommend that the chamber votes for Mr Scott's amendment. To wind up presser with draw. I'll simply press the amendment. Thank you very much, Mr Scott. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15, in the name of Tavish Scott, is yes, 74, no, 54. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We turn now to group 4. I call amendment 19, in the name of Neil Findlay, grouped with amendments, as shown in the groupings. Neil Findlay to move amendment 19 and speak to all amendments in the group. My amendments replace the use of the words necessary and what ministers consider. We believe not only the use of necessary instead of appropriate, but also the removal of what they consider to make this a more objective process than what is contained in the bill. We recognise that it will be required to adapt retained EU law to enable it to work appropriately in Scotland, and this should be the case on or after exit date. In order to do that within the timeframe that we have available, we must confer some powers on ministers to enact it. However, it is the purpose of those amendments that the power they use is necessary, not simply what they deem to be appropriate. We can also all agree that this process should, hopefully, be above party politics and as representative as possible. As that is the case, it is clear that we must make sure that any deficiencies in this bill are open to reasonable challenge by replacing the term appropriate with necessary and removing entirely any reference to what they consider we can achieve that. It is not sufficient to allow ministers to consider appropriate to guide this process. The public deserve and expect to see what is necessary and as such, those amendments redress a democratic imbalance and make the ministers in question more accountable to Parliament. We also reject amendment 23 in this group as it seeks to reverse a previous position agreed at stage 2. To speak to amendment 23 and the other amendment in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This group contains a large number of amendments aimed at the regulation, making, powers and the bill. Many of the issues covered by those amendments and indeed some of those amendments themselves were considered and rejected at stage 2. Let me start by setting out the considerable changes made to this bill already, with the aim of tightening the scope of and increasing the scrutiny of these regulating, making, powers. I know that that is a concern to Parliament. I understand that concern. The Scottish Government has responded to that concern. The Delegated Powers Committee made a specific recommendation about the equivalent powers in the EU withdrawal bill. It recommended that the test should be in two parts. The power should ever only be available where a test of necessity is met, and once that test is met, ministers should be empowered only to make the provision they consider appropriate, so necessary and appropriate sit together. We have included that test of necessity on the face of the bill. It is not in the EU withdrawal bill. Under the continuity bill, Scottish ministers will only be able to use the main fixing powers where it is necessary to do so with a test of necessity in the bill. The bill already, on introduction, reflected the recommendations of the Parliament's committee dedicated to the scrutiny of statutory instruments. At stage 2, a number of amendments to the scope of those powers were made. The bill contains an exhaustive list of types of deficiency and these had tests of necessity added to them as well by opposition amendments at stage 2. For example, the type of deficiency described in section 11.2d only exists where it is now necessary to make provision in connection with EU arrangements, which will no longer exist as a result of Brexit. Those are both substantial and meaningful additional restrictions on the use of the powers in the continuity bill. The position in the bill is a product of concessions made by the Scottish Government and amendments made by the Finance and Constitution Committee at stage 2. When that committee finished its consideration of the bill in this chamber late at night last week, I gave a commitment that the Government would only return at stage 3 with a proposal to reverse any of those changes if doing so was required to keep the bill operable, if the changes in other words would have prevented the bill from being able to do its job preparing our laws for EU withdrawal. Neil Findlay's amendments 22 and 29, unfortunately, would do that. They would replace the second test that I described, allowing appropriate provision to be made once the test of necessity was met with a further test of necessity. That is not what the Delegated Powers Committee recommended. It would actually make those powers effectively impossible to exercise. Sometimes the type of provision required to address a deficiency in devolved law will require a choice to be made, which domestic body will take on a function currently exercised by the EU, for example, or how to adjust a reference to an EU instrument so that it continues to work after withdrawal. Having to make that choice might be necessary and the bill already requires that, but having to choose the best options from a range of them never could be necessary. Neil Findlay's amendments 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28 and 45 would also seek to constrain ministerial discretion in a way that could not work. They remove references to the Scottish ministers considering things to be necessary before the powers can be used, but they beg the question if not the Scottish ministers who will be the ones exercising these important powers? Who? The test of necessity of appropriateness, all the other legal tests in the bill will all have to be considered to be met by someone, and it will of course be the Scottish ministers. It will be the Scottish ministers' judgment and discretion, which is scrutinised when these regulations come before Parliament for scrutiny, and the Scottish ministers who will be held to account. It could never be otherwise. I mentioned at stage 2 the Government's desire to make sure that the right balance was struck. As part of that balancing exercise, I commend to the chamber amendments 31 to 34 in the name of Jamie Greene. Those amendments make four further changes to the substance of the power in section 13, changing the word appropriate to the word necessary. That brings section 13 into line with changes that were made to sections 11 and 12 at stage 2. Those amendments also address a concern raised by Graham Simpson at stage 2. He had suggested the word operable. We consider that necessary is a higher test and should address those concerns, in particular given the other amendments that the Government has lodged and supported in respect of the keeping pace power. I commit, as I have said at stage 2, only to seek to reverse any amendments made if, after carefully considering them, I concluded that their effect was to render the bill or part of it inoperable. I have concluded that there is only one such amendment and I would seek the support of a Parliament in adjusting it back. Amendment 23 proposes to change the word necessary back to appropriate in section 11 to F2, but not in any of the other parts of the test. That is the one area where we think that the way in which the deficiency is described has to be by reference to the standard of appropriateness. The provision is concerned with the deficiency in law arising when retained EU law does not contain any functions which should be kept after withdrawal. The test was amended at stage 2, so it referred to a lack of functions which it is necessary to retain, but this could not work. Leaving the EU could arguably leave many functions which we might all wish to retain unnecessary. There could be functions that we would all be desperate to see kept going, but which being strictly not necessary had to be disposed of because of the amendment made at stage 2. For example, if we imagine that there was an annual report that had to be submitted to the European Commission on a matter of environmental concern, keeping that function going after withdrawal could never be said to be necessary by the test and the bill, but it might be appropriate to decide that the function of receiving the annual report should instead be conferred on the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. Amendment 23 would allow changes like that to be made. Without it, we could be bound in law to eliminate functions when we want to see them kept. Taken with Jamie Greene's amendments, which we support, that would mean that the same scheme applied across sections 11, 12 and 13. At stress again, we have not tabled amendments to seek to reverse the new word necessary in sections 11, 2C, 11, 2D, 11, 2E or 11, 2G. We accept those. If the Parliament votes from amendment 23 and Jamie Greene's amendments 31 to 34, the result will be a strong set of logical limits on the ministerial powers in a bill applied consistently across the bill's provisions and strengthened at stage 2 and stage 3. I'd also invite the committee to reject amendment 54, which would remove in relation to the publication of a statement by ministers in such a manner as Scottish ministers consider appropriate. This is the same wording as is used in the UK bill. I'm afraid I must repeat that we don't think that its removal would add anything at all to the bill. The Scottish ministers will be responsible for publishing these statements and would, of course, have to do so in an appropriate manner. I therefore move amendment 23. I urge that the chamber votes for that. I urge that the chamber votes for amendments 31 to 34 and against the other amendments in this group. I call on Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 31. I rise to move and speak to amendments 31, 2, 3 and 4 in my name. Those amendments relate to section 13 of the bill, which gives the Scottish ministers the power to make provision corresponding to EU law after exit day. This has perhaps been one of the most contentious areas of the bill that we spent many late hours in this chamber debating at stage 2. As it stands, clauses in this bill will allow the Scottish Government to continue to implement new EU law, directives and regulations after exit day, after the UK has left EU and after the transition period has ended. It is quite reasonable to assume that we might see a situation whereby Scottish ministers will choose to implement those EU laws without any representation whatsoever in the European Parliament, no Scottish MEPs, no representation in the Council of the European Union and no Scottish representation in the Committee of the Regions. If this bill is passed today, Scotland would be a real taker rather than a real maker. The principle of no legislation without representation will simply disappear. The Scottish ministers want to implement laws where our only influence on those laws will be through lobbying efforts in Brussels and Strasbourg and to those benches that are simply unacceptable. Section 13, as it is drafted, is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to create regulatory divergence and conflict in the UK. A cynic might say that the SNP want those additional powers. They want those powers to adopt any EU regulation that they see fit to help Scotland meet the criteria of the ackee communitaire in what seems to me like a desperate attempt to align itself with Brussels. Because this Parliament should never forget that the SNP wants to rejoin the EU and hand all those powers back to Brussels, they do. My amendments to replace appropriate with necessary are important. The power to pass EU law into Scots law after exit day should only be done out of necessity, not where Scottish ministers consider appropriate. What is appropriate to me may be different from what is appropriate to the Minister, the Parliament or even indeed the country. For that reason, there may be circumstances where there is a necessity to transpose such regulation. For example, to maintain frameworks that Scotland and the UK continue to participate in after exit or where indeed it makes logical sense to do so. However, my proposal is that, although Scottish ministers will still have this power to make changes, they must do so out of necessity alone and not do so subjectively. If we pass this clause unamended, the Scottish Parliament will today be simply handing ministers a blank check. In my final seconds, I would like to say to all members that it does not matter whether you have voted, remain or leave. What is important is that this bill should not be an attempt to undermine the result of a UK-wide referendum on Europe, nor should this bill be an excuse, a backdoor excuse for the SNP to hand powers back to Brussels. I call on Tavish Scott to be followed by Patrick Harvie. I was puzzled by Jamie Greene's speech because, if I heard the minister right, he said that he was accepting 31 to 34, which I do too. I agree with Jamie Greene on those points. Indeed, they are consistent with the amendments that we debated at stage 2, and I appreciate his arguments here. I think that his speech was slightly out of line with the fact that Parliament is probably going to accept his amendments in a couple of minutes' time. I also support the minister's amendment 23, given that the change needed at stage 2 by my amendment means that subsection 2f2 is protected by a test of reasonableness at the start of subsection 2, and on that basis I take the minister's argument on that. I certainly support Neil Findlay's amendments. I take the minister's concerns about them, but much of this Parliament's concern has been about restricting appropriate ministerial discretion and allowing a more objective test on the face of the bill, and I think that there is an argument that Neil Findlay makes in regard to that point. I am not sure which is more surprising. Jamie Greene's anger at being told that his amendments are being accepted, or indeed the speed with which Conservative members, who a couple of years ago were saying how important it was to protect our place in Europe and that being a member of the European Union was a good thing, are now angry at the fact that some of us still think that. The two basic arguments that I put forward at stage 2, I accepted in general terms the change of language, but I also indicated that where Government thought that it was important for technical reasons to revisit some of those in specific places at stage 3, I would be open to that argument. I am pleased that the minister has only found it necessary to do that in one place, and I accept his amendment to do that. I think that the other general argument that in particular amendments in the name of Neil Findlay moved at stage 2 around ministers having the ability to consider something, that ministers view having a role, not just an objective test. I did not accept that argument in most instances at stage 2. I fear that if we had gone down that road, we would end up with a number of potential, perhaps lengthy and significant legal challenges to ministers taking action to introduce instruments, to introduce regulations, because somebody felt that they had not met an objective test, those objective tests not having been defined in the legislation. If there was going to be an objective test, it needs to be clear how it is to be met, and I think that it would not be clear if we had gone down the road of that group of amendments. I still take that view. Neil Findlay, to wind up and to press or withdraw the amendments in his name. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. Amendment 19. The result of the vote on amendment 19 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 59, no, 69. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 20, in the name of Neil Findlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 20 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 59, no, 69. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 21, in the name of Neil Findlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 21 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 59, no, 69. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 22, in the name of Neil Findlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 22 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 58, no, 68. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 23, in the name of the minister. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 23 in the name of the minister is yes, 73, no, 54. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move now to group 5. I call amendment 24, in the name of the minister. Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out that, if amendment 40 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 3 in group 6. Minister, to move amendment 24 and speak to all amendments in the group. Those are technical amendments to tidy up the bill following the amendments agreed at stage 2 and to make some minor improvements. They are minor. Six of them amendments 24, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 42 reflect the intention of amendments agreed by the Finance and Constitution Committee at stage 2 to prevent the main powers in the bill being used to establish new public authorities. That is the point that Mr Scott raised during stage 2, among others. Accordingly, the bill is amended to ensure consistent prohibitions on doing so and to remove unnecessary references to that power. Amendment 36 takes up the word broadly from broadly equivalent so that section 13 matches the changes that the committee agreed to. Sections 11 and 12 can send the modification of rights and protections. If I remember correctly, Mr Dean Lockhart was successful in his amendment on the issue of the word broadly. Amendments 57 and 64 take up a law society of Scotland technical suggestion to use the standard definition of enactment in the interpretation and legislative reform Scotland Act 2001. I am grateful for the law society of Scotland for their interest in this bill. Amendment 46 is a minor clarification to the consultation requirement in section 15. The requirement to provide reasons for considering it necessary to make provision to prevent remedy or mitigated deficiency applies only to a consultation on proposed regulations under section 11. Amendments 55 and 59 correct minor typographical errors in the wording of the two provisions. I move amendment 24 and recommend that members agree those amendments. As the minister said, those are largely minor technical or correcting amendments. There are also a number of amendments in this group that effectively streamline changes made in stage 2. Amendments 57 and 64 in the name of the minister provides some welcome clarity in relation to the definition of an enactment for the purpose of the bill. I would join the minister in thanking the law society of Scotland for their invaluable input and interest in the bill. As those amendments are largely minor and technical, my Labour colleagues and I are minded to support all amendments in the minister's name. I support amendments 25 and 30 that stop new public authorities from being created under section 11 or section 12. Many of us argued at stage 2 that if ministers want to establish a new quango to keep pace with EU law, they should bring forward primary legislation so that Parliament can decide if that new body is required, or whether the functions can be dealt with by existing bodies. The minister's amendments extend that to sections 11 and 12, and I am grateful to the minister for accepting that argument. As with Neil Bibby, I also support the other technical amendments in this group. Adam Tomkins I just moved the amendment in my name. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Oh, sorry, beg your pardon, I didn't hear that. Please shout loudly. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. No. Okay, we're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members, we cast their votes now. This is amendment 24. The result of the vote on amendment 24 in the name of the minister is yes, 128, no, zero, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 25 in the name of the minister? Yes. I've moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 26 in the name of Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a division. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 26 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 58, no, 68, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 27 in the name of Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a division. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 27 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 58, no, 69, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 28 in the name of Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 28 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 59, no, 68, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 29 in the name of Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 29 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 57, no, 69, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 30 in the name of the minister to move formally. Formally moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 31 in the name of Jamie Greene. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Moved. Moved. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 32 in the name of Jamie Greene to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 33 in the name of Jamie Greene. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Lywdech chi i'r cwrddag Are we agreed? Amendment 35, in the name of the minister, to move formally. Amendment 35, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are. Amendment 36, in the name of the minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 36, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are. Ond.��件事情 1, 我等you to mew, and I call on amendment 37, in the name of Tavish Scott, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out in this group that, if amendment 5 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 41 as it will be pre-empted and I would remind members that, if amendment 40 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 3. Tavish Scott, to move, amendment 37 has speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I just say to the Conservative Chief Whip, Maurice Golden, I thought it was only usually the Liberal Democrats who couldn't sort out how they were voting on an amendment. Can I have utter sympathy for him at these moments? Indeed. Can I move amendment 37? I hope that this in some ways helps Patrick Harvie with the debate that we were having on earlier. Indeed, the first group this afternoon. I spoke at stage 1 in the proceedings of this bill about the need for the Governments across the UK to co-operate. Scottish ministers should consult the other three administrations after taking action to keep pace with EU law under section 13 after exit day. Every political party, have we not, has spoken about the need for those framework agreements and co-ordination across the UK as powers are allocated from March 2019. Amendment 37 says that in the event that every one of the other three administrations specifically asked the Scottish Government not to make a particular regulation to keep up with UK law, then that regulation cannot proceed. However, if ministers do wish to bring that forward, given that background, then the proposal would have to be made through primary legislation. Parliament would therefore be able to look at it in detail. We could consider why the other administrations were opposed. Parliament would be able to hear from businesses, from business interests, from environmental groups, from other stakeholders. We would be able to protect the working of the UK internal market that others have mentioned already from action by a single administration. That amendment represents what I would describe as a federal idea of co-operation. It is in direct contrast to the Conservative approach, which puts control of these issues entirely in the hands of UK ministers. I also want to speak to amendment 61. That makes the commencement of section 13, which is the section of this bill of most concern to members prior to stage 2 of the bill, subject to the affirmative procedure requiring a vote in this Parliament. It must be preceded by a report from ministers setting out clearly their justification for the powers in section 13. The bill is being dealt with through a truncated scrutiny process. Amendment 61 allows Parliament to consider further at a later date and, therefore, with some due consideration, the key-paced powers being sought by ministers. It reflects the concern expressed through amendments that Mike Rumbles was able to remove section 13 from the bill, which were intended to repeat the amendment that was debated at stage 2. Mike Rumbles' amendments on the order paper make it clear how important it is for all of us to accept that section 13 powers are extensive and, in that sense, special. It is why they have been singled out by amendments at stage 2 and further amendments today to restrict the powers that ministers have within this section. Today, at stage 3, I ask Parliament to consider locking the commencement of section 13 behind an affirmative process that allows every member of this Parliament here to vote on it after consideration in the months ahead. I welcome amendment 41 from the minister, which replicates one that I moved at stage 2, and it would make sure that all section 13 orders are subject to that affirmative procedure. I recognise that the minister has significantly changed his position since stage 1. Ash Jenham's amendment 38 requires the minister to report on section 13 powers, and I support that. On that basis, I move amendment 37 and 61 in my name. Thank you very much, and I call Mike Rumbles to speak to amendment 1 and the other amendment in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have a number of amendments in this group to deal with section 13 powers. Those are very extensive powers. I can see Neil Findlay smiling at me, because he got in seconds before I did at stage 2 to put this amendment down. Amendments 2 and 4 are points of detail that ought to be agreed by Parliament across the chamber. Amendment 3 will be pre-empted by amendment 40. The minister is proposing amendment 41, which makes all section 13 powers subject to the affirmative procedure, and I welcome that improvement. Amendments 2 and 4 simply tidy up the wording to remove the duplication that would otherwise exist in subsection 14.2. I am pleased that section 13 powers will be locked behind an affirmative procedure. That means that every MSP will get the opportunity to vote for them or to vote to reject them whenever they come before us. My amendment 1 repeated an amendment at stage 2 to remove section 13 from the bill completely. I really do think that it is important at stage 2 and again today to show just how significant I think the powers are in that section and how very careful ministers and MSPs have to be in the way that they are to be exercised. Thank you, and I call on Ash Denham to speak to amendment 38 and the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This amendment responds to concerns that members expressed at stage 2 about the Scottish Government's ability to renew the keeping pace power. The minister committed that any proposal by the Government to renew the power would be accompanied by detail about how the power had been used up to that point. That would ensure that the Parliament was fully informed about the use that the power had been put to when it was considering any proposal to renew it for a further period. Amendment 38 would require annual reports to be prepared on the use of the keeping pace power. It requires those reports to be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after the end of each year. That means that if the Scottish Government proposes to renew the keeping pace power, Parliament would be able to consider and scrutinise the ways in which the power had been used before making its decision. Thank you, and I call on the minister to speak to amendment 41 and the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendments in this group, as we know, concern the keeping pace power. As I have recognised since this bill was first introduced to Parliament, the concerns about this power are honestly and strongly held across the chamber. I spend a lot of time talking about those concerns and reflecting upon them both before stage 2, during stage 2 and again now. I should say at the beginning that I continue to believe that it will be necessary to have a power of this sort in order to help a smoother transition from implementing EU law under section 2 of the European Communities Act to legislating without the structure of that act sitting behind so many fields of law. I think that this is a practical, useful power to have. The Government therefore will not, and it's no surprise, be recommending that the Parliament accept Mike Rumble's amendment 1, which would delete the power entirely. Yesterday, during the forestry bill, Mike Rumble said that minister, when he mentioned this clause, wouldn't know what to use such clauses for. Let me give him three examples of how this clause might be used. I've used those examples in other places, but some members may have heard them and some may not have heard them. The first is the issue of fish disease, and I speak as a former environment minister. There is a constant upgrading of European listing of fish disease, because clearly, as new fish disease is occurred, it's important that the agriculture sector knows about them and can react to them. Having a keeping pace power would simply mean that when that list is upgraded in the EU, it can be upgraded without primary legislation in this Parliament. That is a minor but exceptionally important thing to do. The second one deals with invasive species, again within the area of the environment. There is clearly a real danger from invasive species across the whole of Europe. If changes are made to the regulations, it is important that our domestic law changes, too, without primary legislation. The third is in the area of animal health, quite clearly an area where we have discussed and continue to discuss the need for a framework, but that framework needs to be updated by information from elsewhere. Those are all comparatively minor in terms of what the power is, but vitally important to the sector's concern. I believe that there is a need and there are places where that need can be reflected. Of course, we have adjusted the power since it was introduced to Parliament. I know that Mr Scott has referred to that. Let me just indicate how that power has been adjusted. The changes that have been made at stage 2 that have already been debated today and that will be made by the amendments to this group should, I hope, be enough to address the concerns of members and result in a keeping pace power that is proportionate, usable, flexible and subject to the most appropriate standard of scrutiny in this chamber and in the committees of this Parliament. The Government, first of all, has always accepted that this power should be sunsetted. At stage 2, Murdo Fraser presented to the committee what he called a menu of choices about how long the power should be capable to be renewed for. I cannot express great enthusiasm for Alucard legislation, but I think that the result reached was a fair one. The initial period for which the power will be available is now three years, with annual renewables thereafter. As an amendment also made at stage 2, those renewables cannot keep the power in force for longer than five years. The effect was well summed up by Patrick Harvie at committee. If, as we approach the end of that five years, the Government, whatever Government that is, remains with the view that the power is a good and necessary one and the Government can demonstrate that by pointing to examples of its use, then it can return to the Parliament with a bill seeking its enactment, a primary bill. That sounds right to me. As I've said, this power is intended to smooth transition between one approach to legislating and another during a period of enormous uncertainty over precisely what we will be legislating for. At stage 2, Tavish Scott was also successful with an amendment which removed the ability of this power to be used to set up public authorities in Scotland. At stage 2, also an amendment which meant that the urgent procedure could not be used for section 13 regulations was successful. The Government accepted those amendments, hasn't sought to reverse them. Earlier today, as part of stage 3 consideration, we've accepted a number of amendments to section 13 by Jamie Greene, which have replaced tests of appropriateness in this section with tests of necessity. That brings the section into line with other tests in the bill. That brings me to the amendments in this group, which contain the final set of changes that I think are required to address Parliament's concerns. My amendment 41, taken with Mr Rumble's amendments 2 and 4, which I will be supporting, will ensure that all regulations made under the keeping pace power are subject to affirmative procedure as a minimum. That will mean that the Parliament has given a positive vote on every proposal to use the keeping pace power to change devolved Scott's law corresponding to a change in EU law. The Government also supports Ash Denham's amendment 38. That would give statutory form to a commitment that I made at both stages 1 and 2. We would only ever seek the renewal of the keeping pace power to be able to demonstrate to Parliament its usefulness and its appropriateness. Ash Denham's amendment therefore requires us to lay before Parliament annually a report on the uses to which the power has been put, something suggested in a different context at stage 2. That means that Parliament will be fully informed about any proposal to renew this power and able to scrutinise in the round the uses the power has been put to. I can't recommend that Parliament accepts either of Scott's amendments 37 or 61. Amendment 37 would give the UK Government, the Welsh Government or any part of the Northern Irish Executive acting together an effective veto over a power held by this Government and Parliament. In line with the memorandum of understanding arrangements we keep other administrations well advised when our legislation touches on matters within their responsibility. But whilst I recognise and respect the concerns that lie behind this amendment a veto is unnecessary and surely cannot also be right. Amendment 61 would make commencement regulations bringing into force the keeping pace power subject to the affirmative procedure. And I believe that too is the wrong approach. Commencement regulations are not usually subject to procedure for good reasons of principle and practice. Parliament makes a decision whether a delegated power should be conferred at the point of degrees the inclusion of that power in primary legislation. It is at that point that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the Government and debate the proposal to confer the power. It wouldn't be useful law or indeed sensible to have the debate once again using subordinate legislation to do so and setting the commencement date as effectively a proxy for the substantive question. I've set out both the Government's reasons for seeking Parliament's approval for this power as well as a significant package of changes to the power made at stage 2 and being made today at stage 3. I hope that this will be enough to satisfy Parliament that this power is being taken for good reasons. If the bill passes later today it will confer on the Government a flexible, practical power but one no more flexible and necessary and one in which this Parliament is centrally evolved at every step. I therefore recommend that the chamber votes for amendments 2, 4, 38 and 41 and against the other amendments in this group. Neil Bibby, to be followed by Neil Findlay. Neil Bibby. My Labour colleagues and I have made no secret of our reservations about this section of the bill at stage 1 and stage 2. Section 13 is widely regarded as the most controversial section of the bill, a point I've made on a number of occasions, a point that committee witnesses have made on a number of occasions and a point accepted by the minister before today and again during today's debate. The minister has not changed his view that section 13 is necessary. I do want to acknowledge the remarks he made today and at stage 2 proceedings in relation to section 13. He has, the minister has accepted the need for scrutiny and restraint in relation to section 13 and he has been clear that the power must be properly used and limited. Those remarks have provided some reassurance as indeed has the Scottish Government's openness to amendments in this area. As the minister said, amendments 169 and 173 from Murdo Fraser which limited the timescales and which section 13 powers could be exercised where accepted at stage 2. Today I welcome amendment 38 in the name of Ash Denham which introduces regular reporting on the use of section 13 powers. I also welcome the amendment 37 from Tavish Scott and I also welcome amendment 41 in the name of the minister which makes use of section 13 powers subject to the affirmative procedure. Section 13 still grants regulation making powers to Scottish ministers. Those powers are significant and far reaching. I have made clear my concerns throughout this process about section 13. I would prefer if it was not in the bill at all. If it is to pass, we should ensure that if it goes ahead with the maximum of parliamentary scrutiny and checks and balances are built into the bill and it is for those reasons that I am minded to support all amendments in the bill. Neil Findlay to be followed by Patrick Harvie. On the provision to make EU after exit day has been one of the most problematic in the bill initially. It sought to concentrate power over regulation in the hands of ministers and away from Parliament. I would have preferred to see this whole section removed and we submitted such an amendment to stage 2 however that was not accepted by the Parliament. The amendments now lodged across Parliament have diluted and put much more control and restraint on ministerial powers and for that reason we will support amendments and reject moves to hoard powers on ministerial hands at the expense of Parliament. Thank you. First of all, can I just put on record that I think as Mike Rumbles knows I misinterpreted during the stage 2 debate some earlier comments that he had made and I apologise for doing that. However, the wider point is that all of us should acknowledge and he is right, Mr Rumbles is right to remind us that the powers in section 13 are extremely significant and by approving them we are doing something which should trouble us all including ministers I think we should be troubled by the situation that we face. I don't believe however that the situation that we face and that is coming at us through the Brexit crisis over the coming years is going to be manageable if we delete section 13 altogether. I just think that that would be unreasonable. Members of other parties who took part in the stage 2 process know that I voted for a number of significant restrictions to those powers and others in the bill. All Opposition parties have managed to achieve changes which I think strike the appropriate balance and I'm grateful that the ministers are not seeking to reverse all of that and have accepted that there needs to be a balanced struck. Mr Russell said quite clearly that with that much shorter timescale Government will be able to return and ask Parliament to change that if necessary. Government doesn't have the comfort of knowing that those powers will be there for such an extended period of time. I think that we have the balance about right for a deeply imperfect and wrong situation that we are having to face. I want to say something briefly about Tavish Scott's amendments in this group. I understand the case that he makes for something closer to a federal relationship and for as long as we are part of the UK, I think that a case can be made for something that feels more like a federal relationship between the Governments of these islands but I see no appetite at all for that elsewhere and it takes more than one to tango. In this case it takes more than two to tango if we have one administration in Northern Ireland that doesn't even exist another administration at UK level which is a minority Government I see no reason why a letter from a Secretary of State not even the resolution of the Westminster Parliament should block this Parliament from taking action that by majority we consider needs to be taken or should be supported. I'm afraid that I don't support that one. However, the minister knows that I have been open to amendment 61 and I listened to his comments and I'm still not clear why the minister thinks that amendment 61 is unworkable. It requires an affirmative procedure for the regulation bringing section 13 into force and it requires only a one month period between laying a report about those issues and the laying of the regulation. Given that I don't anticipate that he wants to lay a regulation bringing that into force within a month from now I think it seems reasonable and I've listened to the minister if he wants to intervene on this to give me any clearer reason why we shouldn't be supporting section 61. I'll listen to him but I'm currently tempted to support amendment 61 because I haven't heard a clear reason why it would be unworkable. I understand that it may be inconvenient to the minister but I don't think it's unworkable. The minister will not have a chance to wind up. Mr Scott will be winding up in this section so if Mr Harvey wishes to hear from the minister... I was merely indicating that if he wanted to intervene I would accept it but he hasn't offered one. I hope that I made a cogent case for rejecting amendment 61 but simply to say that I believe at what amendment 61 is doing and I'm not unsympathetic to it but it places the issue of the commencement date and yet another piece of subordinate legislation as a proxy for the substantive argument and that has not normally been done with commencement dates that it's a substantive argument that is the issue for subordinate legislation. I believe that that's the right thing to do but there are occasions in which that is the case and if Mr Harvey differs on that matter then I understand that point. I'll finish in this group by merely saying that I understand why amendment 61 feels uncomfortable to ministers but I don't think it's unworkable. To wind up in this group. Thank you. I take Patrick Harvey's point in that. On section 61 maybe I could just make the observation to the minister that he said I think if I caught him right he was not usually used but he has also said on a point that I entirely agree with we are not in usual circumstances here in any possible context and therefore this is the argument that I hope Patrick Harvey is accepting and certainly other colleagues across the chamber are accepting that there is yes an extra layer of accountability here. I appreciate that is uncomfortable for ministers and ministers believe they've gone far enough already but there is an argument that I think Parliament is making this afternoon but section 61 adds to that. On 37, I take the point that the minister makes and indeed Patrick Harvey has just made as well if that clause was a veto then I wouldn't support it either but they need to listen to the other part of the argument that I made which is if ministers believe that they have made the right case and it is the important case and it is about a policy change in Scotland they want to see that policy area which Parliament can then scrutinise all again I have sought to argue through this whole section of this bill is a level of scrutinine, a level of parliamentary accountability that I think is consistent with the concerns that members expressed across the chamber on the whole of section 13 which as the minister rightly said is now a very different beast to the one we started with three weeks ago and on that basis I'll be keen to push 37 and 61. Thank you very much and thank you too Are we agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to division. Members may cast their votes now and this will be a one minute vote. Amendment 37 The result of the vote on amendment 37 in the name of Tavish Scott is yes 59, no 69 there are no obsensions the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 1 I call amendment 38 in the name of Ash Denham Ash Denham to move or not move Move. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We now turn to group 7 and I call amendment 39 in the name of Claudia Beamish grouped with amendment 56 Claudia Beamish to move amendment 39 and speak to both amendments in the group amendment 39 is also supported by Colin Smyth MSP and obliges Scottish ministers to have regard to environmental and animal welfare guiding principles when exercising the regulation making powers in sections 11, 1, 12, 13, 1 of this bill. The regulation making powers enable Scottish ministers to ensure that the devolved EU law continues to operate effectively, comply with international obligations and keep pace with developments in EU law after UK withdrawal. With regard to these powers it is important that the bill make explicit the reference to five guiding principles included in my amendment. While the general principles are included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the guiding principles are not enshrined in the same way. I stress section 4 of the amendment is worded so as to take account of those principles that have not been through the European Court so ministers whether or not they have case law precedent. Those guiding principles are vital in focusing minds on environmental decision making and have real application in Scotland and I will give some quick examples. The precautionary principle the first ensures that we do not take action when there is doubt. As seen in the discussion of the emerging evidence that fish farm chemicals can cause damage to burying animals' nervous systems in the food chain and marine systems in the longer term. Being led by the principle that preventative action should be taken to avert environmental damage this has been delivered action on air pollution and air quality and Glasgow City Council refer to the preventative action in their plans for the first low emission zone and the retrofitting of buses just this week. Ensuring that environmental damage is the third and is rectified that it should be rectified at source and this is essential in preventing such issues as for example electrification by animal waste entering our water courses which causes burns and rivers to be overly rich in minerals and nutrients overgrown with water plants and likely to be depleted in oxygen. The principle of polluter pays has real importance for our communities as well as our environment. The Court of Session in 2013 opencast ruling ensured that former opencast coal sites are maintained by the Scottish coal liquidators to prevent further environmental damage excuse me and has ensured that the cost isn't met by public money. Dalchwandi opencast in my region is a clear beneficiary of this principle in relation to forcing restoration and finally the recognition that animals are sentient is something that Colin Smith will speak on further. For years EU directives and treaties have focused our minds on air, marine and terrestrial environmental issues and this is fundamental that these are enshrined in our laws through this bill. I also speak in support of Mark Ruskell's amendment 56 a duty to consult is essential for guiding principles and governance in relation to the environment. This obligation is important as it relates to both compliance with the law and effective implementation. Timescale is valuable. I have already highlighted the significance through some examples of which there are many more of the guiding principles in my remarks on my amendment 39. I don't intend to rehearse these. I speak in support of both these amendments. Thank you. Mark Ruskell speaks to amendment 56 and the other amendment in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We might be leaving the European Union but we are certainly not leaving our environment. Those two amendments that are put forward in this group are vitally important because they save and retain the important guiding principles that have protected our environment and protected animal welfare in recent years. Not only will they protect the principles of how they exist at the moment, they will provide a foundation to build on this progress and to build future policy and future laws that protect our environment for the decades to come. I would like to thank colleagues across Labour, Liberal Democrat parties and also the Minister himself for the constructive negotiations that we have had in bringing forward these amendments. Presiding Officer, this is what mature politics looks like. There are no wrecking amendments in this group. There are only amendments that will stop our environment being wrecked. In terms of Claudia Beamish's amendment 39, she has outlined the importance of those principles. For me personally, the principle of animal sentience is absolutely vital. We see animals as sentient beings, not just simple commodities to be traded across boundaries. The principles are part of our everyday work and our environment committee just on Tuesday. We had a debate about salmon conservation where the entire debate was dominated by our interpretation of the precautionary principle. That is the right thing and should continue to go forward. In terms of amendment 56 in my name, it will ensure that there is a consultation about how we interpret these principles going forward beyond withdrawal. It will bring clarity in terms of the functions that public bodies have to monitor and to regulate our environment. I hope that there is not a governance gap on withdrawal. The role of the European Court of Justice is particularly important in this regard. We think about how instrumental ECEJ has been in terms of driving action on air quality across the UK. Anyone who has followed the debate on the low-emission zones over the last couple of days will realise just how important it is that we have an independent body that can hold public bodies to account. I note the comments from Ruth Davidson in the Scotsman today again backing environmental courts. Although the Tories weren't involved in cooking up this amendment, I certainly hope that Ruth Davidson and the Tories will be able to support this because this is the best way to deliver environmental courts in Scotland. Put it out to consultation, drive that argument further forward. I move the amendment in my name. Colin Smyth will be followed by Maurice Golden. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At stage 2 of the bill, I proposed amendment 3 that sought to establish at the principle of article 13 that recognises the sentence of animals as included as one of the general principles of EU law. Tavyscot and Mark Ruskell proposed similar amendments. At that time I did not press amendment because the minister gave a commitment to work with myself and others on proposals for stage 3. Amendment 39 in Claudia Beamish's name and supported by myself is the outcome of those discussions with the Government. I place on record my thanks to MSPs from across the chamber, the minister and Scottish Government staff for the work done to get to the stage where amendment 39 can go forward, I hope, with full cross-party support. Amendment 39 creates a clear statutory underpinning for a number of vitally important issues and I would like to speak briefly on subsection 3e on animal sentence. The principle of animal sentence is currently enshrined in law in article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU as we move forward. The sentence of animals is well established, the science is conclusive and the principle is implicitly recognised in other pieces of legislation. There is no space for complacency and there is certainly no space for legal ambiguity on the matter. Most of animal health and welfare Scotland works to achieve aims based on the principle of animal sentence. It is never explicitly mentioned in the bill and the scope of the bill is narrow. It does not cover, for example, free living wild animals, animals used in scientific procedures or anything done in the normal course of fishing. Crucianly, it applies to individuals who are responsible for animals whereas article 13 applies to government policy, which is crucial. We must be clear that we as a Parliament recognise the sentence of animals and provide an unequivocal statutory basis for this principle. I therefore urge members to support amendment 39 table by Claudia Beamish and supported by myself. Maurice Golden to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Maurice Golden. Let me be first clear that we agree with the guiding principles on the environment and animal welfare. However, the codification of EU law into this bill is ultimately, in my view, superfluous. There is already an obligation under international law to apply these guiding principles as long as we are a member of the UK which is indeed a signatory to these international treaties to which we are bound. On that basis, there was no reason for me to construct amendments as have been highlighted here today. Claudia Beamish. I thank the member for taking intervention and surely the member will agree with me that some of the international laws are more or less robust than EU law but it is EU law that has been the guiding principles and indeed the general principles through the Fundamental Charter of Rights for our laws here in Scotland. It is concerning if the member does not acknowledge that and consider supporting this amendment. Maurice Golden. I thank the member for that intervention and let's be clear that with respect to this EU law is indeed undefined and I will articulate that particular point. Article 191 of the Treaty of the Functioning EU mentions but does not define the principles. Furthermore, it mentions them once in that but doesn't then elucidate what that will mean for those which reference that EU law. Furthermore, it states that union policy shall take into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the union and those principles are subject to the interpretation of the European Court. Therefore, it strikes me that those amendments are ultraveries as the European Court would be outwith the jurisdiction and therefore the interpretation of the application of those guiding principles not defined could lead to a risk of environmental harm or at the very least the unwanted change to environmental practices in Scotland. Of those principles I will provide one example. The precautionary principle was established through the Montreal protocol and furthermore laterally codified by the legally binding treaties of the Rio Declaration and Kyoto protocol which the UK is a signatory to and therefore the auspices of that principle are within the competence of how we must adhere to and dispense environmental law in Scotland. Let's look at the EU. In 2 February 2000 a communication from the commission on the precautionary principle states that in practice its scope is much wider and may be inconsistent with a high level of protection so we are leaving ourselves open in making these amendments without definition We don't know how the precautionary principle as undefined will be applied are we looking at non-proclusion, margin of safety best available technique or a prohibitory approach with respect to the application of that and therefore we are left wide open. However, these amendments represent bad law constructed badly and thus entirely in keeping with the rest of the bill. There is no clarity there is a governance gap which is created, however on that basis we do support the rationale behind these amendments and recognise that the members are with the best of intentions and therefore we will support the amendments. I think that's what you call throwing a googly at the end there but once again we hear a conservative colleague condemning for several minutes something that ultimately I'm pleased to say we're all going to be supporting now. This is a really important group of amendments we know that environmental policy has been one of the things that Europe has been good at we also know and we would be foolish to ignore that some of those leading the Brexit charge in the UK government are avoward climate change deniers for example, people who have been hostile to environmental policy on a range of issues, people who are ready to frack the country as far as they possibly can. We need to ensure that our legislation passes the test of protecting the country against that agenda. The UK legislation monumentally failed that test and I'm very pleased that this legislation will not fail it. I'm pleased also that after a stage 2 process in which three political parties brought different approaches to trying to get to essentially the same outcome they've now had the chance to sit down alongside the government and figure out a way of getting agreement on those principles and also on the actions the government needs to take to avoid a governance gap in relation to our environmental policy in Scotland. I'm grateful for everyone who's put the work in over the last wee while to reach that point. One final point Presiding Officer, as the minister mentioned in the discussion on the first group, there will be aspects of this legislation which need to be maintained even if he eventually reaches as I personally am not convinced as possible if he eventually reaches an agreement with the UK Government and asks this Parliament to strike down this legislation to repeal it after we've passed it and I again cast cold water on that scenario but if it was to happen there'll be aspects that need to be carried over this is one of them and it's something which now that we're agreeing it across parties needs to be preserved in our approach to the Brexit crisis regardless of what happens to this legislation in the negotiation between two governments. Thank you and I call on the minister Michael Russell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to agree to these amendments from Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell. I'm grateful to them and Colin Smyth and Tavish Scott for working with the Government to refine their stage 2 amendments to ensure appropriate regard can be given to the guiding principles on environment and animal welfare. This and a number of other amendments and groups of amendments have been the product of hard work between my officials and the members and I'm glad that that is where politics works. As I said last week at stage 2, the purpose of this bill is to ensure overall continuity of law rather than to take forward changes to our legislative policy framework. However, the proposed amendments regarding the environment have allowed us to focus our attention on how this Government best ensures we're doing everything in our power to continue to maintain, protect and enhance our environment. Something that my friend and colleague Roseanna Cunningham has as a central concern. The bill already ensures that the precautionary principle as a general principle of EU law will continue to be part of Scots law. I said last week that I will ensure that the explanatory notes to the bill are amended to clarify this. I have already shared draft wording with Mr Beamish and Mr Ruskell and other members who seek to do just that. Amendment 39 ensures that ministers will have regard to the guiding principles on the environment and animal welfare when using the regulation making powers 11-1, 12-13-1 of the bill. Whilst all EU legislation, which has rolled over through the bill, will already have been informed by the principles as part of the EU's policy development and decision making, this amendment will ensure that we are also considering the principles when we are making regulations to correct deficiencies or to keep pace with EU law. This includes when ministers are exercising these powers to rectify or alter duties or powers of public authorities. There are six support Scottish ministers clear commitment to carry through not just the letter of EU environmental law but also its spirit, which is rightly a discussion much wider in scope than just this bill. This amendment ensures that we will consult on how the environmental principles continue to guide future policy and legislation and how we continue to have effective and appropriate environmental governance following EU withdrawal. This amendment does not include a commitment to consult on animal welfare principles because of current discussions under way at Westminster. The UK is rightly considered to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, with a strong tradition of developing legislation to prevent animal suffering since 1822. The concept that animals are sentient and can experience emotions such as terror and fury, as well as suffering physical and mental pain was implicitly recognised in Scottish legislation over a century ago. There is a clear understanding of animal welfare needs in more recent legislation in Parliament, for example, from 2006. Scottish ministers have readily agreed in principle to allow a bill introducing a duty for UK Government ministers to have regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings to apply to Scottish ministers in due course through a legislative consent motion. We look forward to a Westminster bill requiring this following a recent consultation if we require to take further action that will be taken. Both amendments also make clear that when interpreting these principles in post-EU withdrawal, we will continue to consider how they are interpreted at EU level by the European courts, ensuring that our understanding of the principles continues to be informed by EU case law. We have always made clear our intention to continuing to protect and enhance Scotland's environment and ensuring that we are equipped to continue to play a leading role on addressing global challenges to our environment. Those amendments enabled our commitments in law and represent a different approach to that taken by the UK Government when no such equivalent legislative commitments have been agreed to in the withdrawal bill. It gives me a particular pleasure to have made this progress on this bill as a former environment minister. For those reasons, I commend that the chamber votes for amendments 39 and 56. Thank you very much. I call on Claudia Beamish to wind up to press or withdraw. I am delighted to press, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is therefore that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 2 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. This is amendment 2. The result of the vote on amendment 2 in the name of Mike Rumbles is yes, 96, no, 31. I call amendment 40 in the name of the minister. I would remind members that, if amendment 40 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 3. Minister to move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 4 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote in amendment 4 in the name of Mike Rumbles is yes, 97, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 5 in the name of Mike Rumbles. I remind members that, if amendment 5 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 41. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. I call amendment 41 in the name of the minister. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. This is amendment 41. The result of the vote in amendment 41 in the name of the minister is yes, 97, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 6 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 42 in the name of the minister. Minister to move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We now turn to group 8. I call amendment 43 in the name of Jamie Greene, grouped with amendment 62. Jamie Greene to move amendment 43 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At stage 2 of the proceedings, I proposed an amendment 227, including a new reporting clause. In essence, it said that Scottish ministers should lay before Parliament a report detailing how many deficiencies and retained devolved EU law had been identified, and how many regulations under section 11 would be laid before us as a result of that. I'm pleased to say that amendment was passed at stage 2 after much deliberation. It's a welcome piece of scrutiny. But this is often the case between stages 2 and 3. There is discussion on how to improve the bill. Thereafter, on the face of it, I discussed some proposals with the bill team on how to strengthen that reporting process, and we did so in the form of amendment 62, which I submitted. The problem, however, is that at the top of line 1 of amendment 62, it says, leave out section 36A. Now, section 36A was another amendment that I submitted at stage 2, which was a much wider clause around review of the entire act, and I gave a duty on the ministers to lay a report before Parliament. Again, this was agreed by consensus at stage 2. I'm afraid the amendment, as it's currently worded, if passed will take away section 36A, which I, in retrospect, feels in a very important part of the bill, and which had consensus. I think this is really just a consequence of the haste of the process of this entire bill, which has gone through. I'd like to thank the civil service team who worked with me in recent days and indeed in recent minutes to see if we could find a compromise on this, but as it stands, with the wording, leave out section 36A, I would be unable to support this and therefore appeal to the minister that he would respect the current status quo with regards to the amendments which we passed at stage 2 via consensus, including 36A, and the previous wording that I had suggested on reporting. I would appeal to him not to move these amendments if I do not do so, and if the minister does insist on moving them, I would appeal to members and I call the minister. I think that this is a genuine difficulty that has arisen for Mr Greene and, as he says, he did submit this amendment and the amendment relates to the reporting requirements on the bill. There were two proposals, a range of proposals at stage 2, including a proposal from Mr Golden about reporting, and it was accepted at stage 2 that we would endeavour to bring together those reporting requirements so that the bill worked better. As I understand it, and this has been a fast-developing situation this afternoon, there are two problems that Mr Greene has identified. One is that he is concerned that the amendment does not cover the identification reporting on the number of deficiencies in advance, as its original amendment did. I am happy to give a commitment on the record that has been provided in advance and I hoped up until a few moments ago that that would be sufficient to address its concerns. However, I understand that there is another objection to this and, as he has mentioned, the amendment would remove section 3A which calls for a general review of the act. Let me see if I can help with this too. It is up to any committee to review any act and I would expect the Finance and Constitution Committee, for example, to be willing to review this act. If the two possible objections are, and this is as far as I am aware, one of them in terms of the number of deficiencies that are identified in advance, then I commit to those deficiencies being brought forward in advance. There is no difficulty in doing so. If the issue is that there is no specific mention of a review, then I am very happy, and of course I cannot tell committees of the Parliament what to do, I am very happy to encourage a review of this act by the Finance and Constitution Committee and, quite clearly, I would like to keep reviewing the issues of Brexit. In all those circumstances, what this amendment does is it creates a cogent, these two amendments, a cogent and coherent system of reporting. That is why we wanted to make the change and that is why we agreed to have these negotiations. I am sorry, and I do not know how it has happened, but clearly at some stage Mr Greene has lodged amendments that he now disagrees with. I suppose that does happen, it does happen, but I do think that this is the best way forward, and therefore I do wish to move those amendments. Jamie Greene to wind up and to press or withdraw. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that the notion that we have changed our mind is not the case. I think that the minister will be aware that there was a very earnest discussion between those benches and his own bill team on the wording. We did work together to improve and actually there is much to be welcome in the additional wording that is provided on how the minister will report to Parliament. There are actually very welcome words from those benches. The problem is, I think, the inadvertent addition of the line which seeks to remove an entire section of the bill which we added at stage 2 and which had consensus at stage 2 and was agreed at stage 2. I think that it should remain so I am disappointed that the minister has chosen therefore to move these amendments. Very briefly. Terry Scott. Sorry, Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie? He is like up there. He is like up there, Presiding Officer. Patrick Harvie, please. Let's say nothing more, Presiding Officer, about that. Can I just try to understand the situation because I'm afraid it does seem a little puzzling. Earlier, Jamie Greene was very angry at the minister accepting one of his amendments and now he's arguing against another group of his own amendments. It would have been helpful if he could have got in touch with all members and all political parties to discuss any concerns that he had with amendments. We've looked at the amendments. I think that what he's lodged here represent an improvement to the bill compared with where we were at stage 2. Can he try to be very specific? What exactly is the issue that has changed since he lodged these amendments? Jamie Greene. Thank you. I'm very happy to provide clarification to Mr Harvie on this. I actually agree, Mr Harvie, that there are additional wording being included in the amendment that was proposed by the bill team to ourselves to submit and at the time I was very happy to submit. I think that the deficiency has arised in the bill of the wider review of the act, which is 36A. I think that, as it currently stands, the reporting that the minister will have to do is only in relation to sections 11 and 17 of the bill. I stand to be corrected if that's the case. Whereas my original clause 36A, which we discussed at great length at stage 2 and which I think possibly had the support of Mr Harvie, was to have a review of the act in its entirety, not just sections or parts of it. We throw our hands up to say that, had that been spotted earlier, I would not have pressed the amendment. I apologise for that. As it stands, I would like to keep 36A as a clause in the bill. It's an important part of the bill to ensure that Parliament does review the bill in its entirety, not just bits of it as the minister is proposing at the moment. Thank you. Can I ask the member if he wishes to press or withdraw? To withdraw. I would like to move the amendment. I would like to move the amendment. Minister, I would like to move the amendment. In that case, the question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 43 in the name of Jamie Greene is yes, 97, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. A call amendment 7 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles to move or not moved. Not moved. Not moved, thank you. We turn now to group 9. And a call amendment 65 in the name of Graham Simpson. Group to the amendments 66, 44 and 44A. Graham Simpson to move amendment 65 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm speaking to amendments 65, 66 and 48A in this group as convener of the delegated powers and law reform committee. The committee agreed to lodge these amendments at its meeting yesterday morning and we were unanimous. And I thank you, Presiding Officer, for agreeing at that late stage to accept them. The amendments are all concerned with assuring that Parliament is able to apply effective and proportionate scrutiny to regulations made under this bill. In particular... Stuart McMillan. Or taking the intervention and setting just to put it on the record that Mr Simpson will be very much aware that since our committee meeting yesterday both David Torrance, MSP and myself have withdrawn our support for these particular amendments as a consequence all of information that wasn't fully present at the time of the committee which will be in present after our committee meeting. Graham Simpson. Yes, the member did change his mind but what I said is we were unanimous at the meeting which we were. I'll come on to that I'm sorry that the member has raised that but I'll come on to that in my summing up. The amendments relate to section 14A in the bill as amendment amended at stage 2 and amendment 44 which seeks to replace that section. Section 14A and amendment 44 provide different approaches to the creation of a sifting process whereby a parliamentary committee, my committee in the case of amendment 44 can decide that the procedure attached to an SSI made under section 11, 12 or 13 is incorrect and a different procedure should be attached. The committee is a longstanding interest in this issue. The idea of the parliament having a role in the setting of the procedure for regulations is one that the committee recommended in its report on the European Union withdrawal bill. When the committee met yesterday morning it could see the merits in the approach taken in section 14A. Section 14A of the bill provides that regulations under sections 11, 12 and 13 should be subject to a pre-laying sifting process of 15 days during which time a committee of the parliament can decide that the procedure attached to regulations should be different from the one proposed by Scottish ministers. Subsection 7 of section 14A provides that the Scottish ministers are required to change the procedure attached to the regulations if a committee has made such a recommendation. In this regard, section 14A is a welcoming improvement on the approach taken in the European Union withdrawal bill, where ministers are not bound to proceed in accordance with the decision of the parliament. Amendment 44 which replaces section 14A puts in place a new sifting process. However, it does retain some of the same features such as the binding nature of the committee's recommendation. The crucial difference in approach is that the sifting process now takes place once the amendment has been laid and this means that if an instrument is laid as a negative it can be changed to an affirmative if that's what's recommended by my committee within 20 days of laying. The amendment also establishes a new process at subsection 10 allowing amendments to be categorised as urgent and therefore not subject to this sifting process. The committee accepted when it looked at this yesterday that there might be a need for such an urgent procedure but it was not otherwise persuaded by the new approach taken in amendment 44. Specifically, the committee was concerned about the loss of the pre-laying period for scrutiny which is provided for in section 14A of the bill. The committee was concerned that undertaking this process in the course of the normal scrutiny of an instrument would damage the quality of parliamentary scrutiny and this is the important point because members will be using the first 20 days of scrutiny to consider whether the right procedure has been attached to an instrument rather than considering the actual content of the instrument. Changing the procedure doesn't mean restarting the clock so there would be a new 40 days period for scrutiny now that it's subject to a higher level of scrutiny. It just means that the instrument will continue to progress through the same 40 day period but now subject to a different procedure. Equally the change in procedure could be accompanied by a change to the instrument again making parliamentary scrutiny more challenging in the reduced time period. The committee was also concerned about the effect of subsection 6, 7 and 8 of amendment 44. They provide respectively that the resolution of the DPLR committee changing the procedure attached to a negative instrument implies that the instrument has been revoked and that nothing further may be done under the regulations. The committee was concerned about the absence of public notice in regard to such a revocation and the impact that this might have on those affected by the relevant law. How are those affected know the instrument have been revoked? With these concerns in mind the committee considered when it looked at this yesterday that section 14a in the bill as amended at stage 2 was preferable subject to the addition of the urgent procedure which is provided for by way of amendment 66. The committee agreed yesterday to encourage the Parliament to retain this approach. Amendments 65 and 44a amend section 14a and amendment 44 in order to provide for the SIFT process that I've described to apply to regulations under section 19. Section 19 of the bill provides the Scottish ministers with a power in relation to fees and charges. The bill provides that the first exercise of this power. I wonder if I could ask Mr Arthur to stop chattering. It's rather distracting. Members, pay attention please in the chamber. The bill provides that the first exercise of this power is subject to the affirmative procedure. Subsequent exercises of the power are subject to the negative procedure although there is no limit on what those subsequent exercises of the power can do. The committee's been given the view that the affir