I rise to support the amendments in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and to oppose clause 11. I have sat here since 3 o'clock, and I have been to the toilet once, nearly equalling Mr Speaker's record, so he is obviously having an influence on my ability to hold in my water. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I want to discuss my concerns about clause 11 and Scotland's environmental laws. Since Scotland gained a devolved Parliament, the political conversation on the divergence of policies has in many cases become diametrically opposite to the policies here in Westminster. I have always believed that, if someone wants to change the world, they have to get busy in their own little corner. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have done and are doing just that, and they are backed by the people of Scotland in trying to come up with more policies to improve social wellbeing and social mobility. A better community means that a better community spirit can be established, but if the present Tory Government stand in the way of our targets, aims and aspirations, do not think for one minute that the Scottish people will take that lying down-they will not. The Scottish Government have steadily improved their environmental policies, which have been praised by a variety of academics and recognised by various politicians from other countries, who have commented positively on Scotland's aims and ambitions. During a trip by the Environmental Audit Committee to Washington earlier this year, the president of one of the universities that we visited could not speak highly enough of the Scottish Government and all their chemical policies, and I want the Labour party and the Conservative party to remember that. The Scottish Government have provided certainty of policy on environmental issues and that policy sits at the top of the tree. Investors like that. Investors who believe in corporate responsibility like that. Investors in people and businesses who see the positive social impact that good, sustainable policies deliver to all parts of the community like that. Expert commentators like that. Most importantly, our people-the Scottish people-like that, and it is the right thing to do. That is why it is so important that we as a country protect our carefully thought-out policies-our devolved policies. I want to give some examples of comments about our policies that have been given to the Environmental Audit Committee. Professor Holgate, who is an expert on the health effects of poor air quality, said:“Scotland is taking a lead in this area... Scotland has been able to... keep the relationships between the public, health and local authorities intact. In this countryâ€-England-“they have drifted apartâ€. He praised the Scottish Government's approach to tackling poor air quality and their adoption of World Health Organisation guidelines on fine particulates into law-the first country in Europe to do so. He challenged England to raise the bar-I like that. Do we need to protect these policies? Yes, we do. We simply must not get soil health wrong. Sir Peter Melchett and David Thompson attended our Committee. During their evidence, David Thompson said:“The Scottish Government...have a statutory requirement to produce a land use strategy under their Climate Change Act, which is not the case for the rest of the country.â€Sir Peter Melchett said that the Scottish Government were looking at the science of soil protection 15 years ago and that the science is linking more closely in Scotland than he has“ever seen happen in England.â€I like that. Sir Peter Melchett and David Thompson are educated, knowledgeable people. Do we need to protect that policy? Yes, we do. I will now get a wee bit into the crux of the matter, the re-reservation of powers and the possible threat to Scotland's environment. Emma Barton, the Royal Yachting Association's planning and environmental manager, and Professor Carolyn Roberts, vice-president of the Institution of Environmental Sciences, both appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee. When I asked them about marine protection zones, Emma Barton said:“As far as I am concerned we have had a...positive experience in Scotland... I don't have any particular concerns...in Scotland.â€When I asked Professor Roberts about the possible post-Brexit danger that devolved Administrations would be forced to take things they do not want, such as genetically modified crops or fracking, her answer was yes. Again, I pressed her on whether these powers could be taken back, and she said, yes, of course they could. The complexity of working out exactly what the devolved Administrations can and cannot do will mean that every legal decision they make in areas touched by European legislation will be open to challenge at UK level. Effectively, this could turn them into paper Parliaments whose decisions could be overturned by anyone with the resources to launch a case at the UK Supreme Court. The Scottish Government agree that common frameworks are needed to guide many legislative areas across the UK post-Brexit, but the frameworks need to be agreed, not imposed. My last quote is from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who was sitting in the Chamber earlier. He has said that he had his own “Damascus momentâ€ on environmental issues, which I welcome, but he raised eyebrows at the EAC in November with his answers on devolved matters. He promised to clarify his position, which he has done by way of a letter to the Committee. Or has he? The letter said:“In particular, we will explore with the devolved administrations whether they wish to take a different or similar approach. We have been clear throughout that we respect the devolution settlements, that we expect more powers to be devolved and that no decisions which the devolved administrations currently make will be taken from them.â€Consider that. I repeat it:“no decisions which the devolved administrations currently make will be taken from them.â€Post-Brexit, will the Government honour the Environment Secretary's statement and make the temporary position permanent?