►
From YouTube: Debate: UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Bill - 29 October 2020
Description
Debate: UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Bill
A
I'm
moving
right
onto
the
next
eiffel
business,
which
is
a
debate
in
motion
231-363
in
the
name
of
michael
russell.
On
uk
withdrawal
from
the
european
union
continuity,
scotland
bill
can
ask
those
members
who
wish
to
speak
in
the
debate
to
press
the
request
to
speak
buttons
down
I'll
call
him
michael
russell
to
speak
to
and
move
the
motion
cabinet
secretary.
Please.
B
My
apology,
presenting
obviously
I
thought,
I'd,
contribute
my
own
kerfuffle.
As
I
didn't
see
the
earlier
one
presiding
officer,
let
me
start
with
a
truism
which,
however,
needs
to
be
repeated
regularly
and
often
the
people
of
scotland
voted
overwhelmingly
to
remain
in
the
european
union,
but
are
being
dragged
out
to
the
eu
against
their
will.
B
The
tories
in
government
in
the
uk,
though
in
perpetual
opposition
here,
are
not
listening,
but
the
scottish
government
and
I
believe
this
scottish
parliament
is
listening.
We
hear
the
ambition
of
the
people,
scotland,
to
retain
the
closest
links
with
the
eu
to
continue
to
meet
the
higher
european
standards
which
presently
serve
us
so
well,
and
this
bill
makes
us
start
at
least
in
meeting
those
ambitions.
It's
a
modest
measure,
but
it
will
be
of
use
to
every
part
of
our
country
in
every
sector
of
our
economy.
B
The
only
people
who
oppose
it
are
those
who
have
got
us
into
this
mess.
In
the
first
place,
this
bill
returns
the
ability
to
regulate
lost
as
a
result
of
the
brexit
that
scotland
rejected.
It
replaces
the
protection
for
scotland's
environment
provided
by
eu
law.
It
is
a
statement
of
our
values
and
of
the
path
we
believe
is
the
best
future
for
scotland.
Now,
my
remarks
on
it
will
focus
on
part
one
of
the
bill
and
my
colleague,
rosanna
cunningham,
will
cover
part
two,
which
is
a
particular
focus
in
her
area
of
responsibility.
B
Let
me
thank,
let
me
make
some
progress,
please.
I
want
to
thank
the
finance
and
constitution
committee,
the
environment,
climate
change
and
land
reform
committee
and
the
delegated
powers
and
law
reform
committee
for
their
thoughtful
contributions
to
scrutiny
of
the
bill
so
far,
and
also
everyone
who
has
expressed
their
views,
and
if
mr
fraser
wishes
to
express
his
views,
he
may.
C
Say
I'm
grateful
to
the
campaign
for
for
giving
way.
It
was
stated
in
evidence
to
the
finance
and
constitution
committee
that
this
bill
creates
a
substantial
henry
viii
power,
taking
power
away
from
this
parliament
and
giving
it
to
scottish
ministers.
The
cabinet
secretary
would
be
apoplectic
if
the
uk
government
were
to
do
this.
Why
is
it
all
right
for
him.
B
I
would
be
in
a
state
of
permanent
apoplexy
if
I
thought
about
the
amount
of
that
that
is
done
well,
I
am
only
in
a
state
of
permanent
apoplexy
because
I'm
faced
with
people
like
murdo
fraser
too
often,
I
have
to
say
the
I
would
be
in
a
state
of
permanent
apoplexy.
If
I
even
thought
about
the
powers
that
the
uk
government
was
taking
to
itself
on
a
daily
basis
today
in
the
in
the
house
of
lords
in
the
eternal
market
bill.
B
So
please
do
not
patronize
this
chamber
by
pretending
by
pretending
there
is
an
interest
in
the
powers
the
powers
are
being
grabbed
by
the
party
of
which
mr
fraser
is
a
member.
Let
me
make
some
progress,
however,
let
me
not
be
distracted
by
mr
fraser.
It's
never
a
pleasant
experience.
A
defining
feature
of
this
parliament,
in
contrast
to
some
others,
is
the
importance
we
place
on
listening
to
those
affected.
By
what
we
do
now.
The
power
in
section.
B
One
is
intended
to
give
ministers
an
appropriate
way
to
recognize
in
domestic
law
the
high
standards
represented
by
the
eu
law,
and
I
have,
of
course
heard
the
calls
for
greater
clarity
on
the
principles
which
underpin
how
this
power
will
be
exercised.
I
agree
with
those
who
say
that
the
nature
and
breadth
of
the
eu
law
makes
trying
to
define
these
in
the
bill
almost
impossible,
but
I
will
commit
if
the
bill
passes
stage,
one
today
to
publishing
guidance
on
the
factors
ministers
will
have
to
consider.
B
I've
also
heard
calls
for
the
parliament
to
reflect
on
the
role
it
and
stakeholders
should
play
in
scrutinizing
regulations
and,
of
course
this
is
an
important
issue
in
every
bill.
Some
have
suggested
that
primary
legislation
should
be
required
instead,
of
course,
there's
a
role
for
primary
legislation
in
areas
of
major
innovation,
but
to
make
all
legislative
changes.
However,
small
and
technical
through
primary
legislation
would
be,
and
always
is
disproportionate.
I
give
way.
D
B
I'm
always
happy
to
agree
with
the
reasonable
face
of
the
conservative
party,
which
of
course
I
have
just
heard,
so.
We
will
of
course
make
sure
that
when
there
are
major
changes
they
are
adopted
in
that
way,
but
attempting
to
limit
the
power
to
exclude
significant
new
proposals
wouldn't
be
practical.
Given
the
legal
difficulties
in
defining
those
again
subject
to
parliament's
agreement.
However,
I'll
engage
further
to
agree
a
way
of
working
together
which
identifies
not
only
the
point
that
liz
smith
has
made
but
gives
parliament
an
earlier
role
as
possible.
B
I
will
also
bring
forward
an
amendment
requiring
ministers
to
make
a
statement
to
accompany
regulations
under
this
power
setting
out
the
consultation
which
has
taken
place
with
local
government
and
others.
And
finally,
we
have
listened
to
those
who
are
concerned
that
brexit
threatens
human
rights.
With
parliament's
agreement
to
the
general
principles
of
bill,
I
will
bring
forward
an
amendment
to
require
a
further
statement
to
accompany
regulations
explaining
any
effects
on
human
rights,
presiding
officer.
The
people
of
scotland
did
not
choose
brexit.
B
They
certainly
didn't
choose
as
a
sort
of
disastrous
no
deal
brexit,
which
is
still
a
real
possibility.
Nor
did
they
choose
the
equally
bad
low
deal,
which
is
the
only
alternative
left
on
the
table.
That
low
deal
is
a
painfully
thin
job,
destroying
ideological
muddle
which,
if
imposed
in
the
middle
of
a
global
pandemic
and
deep
recession,
will
cost
every
one
of
us
dear.
It
beggars
belief
that
any
responsible
government
would
even
consider
it
still.
Let's
choose
it.
B
This
government
will
do
all
we
can
to
ensure
we
remain
a
confident
outward
looking
country
sharing
values
with
the
people
of
england,
wales
and
northern
ireland,
as
well
as
with
our
european
neighbors,
valuing
our
joint
commitment
to
human
rights,
compliance
with
international
law
and
the
protection
of
the
environment
at
its
core,
and
with
that
I
shall
pass
over
to
rosanna
cunningham,
the
cabinet
secretary
for
environment,
climate
change
and
land
reform.
Who
will
speak
to
part
two
of
the
bill.
E
A
unique
job
share
for
the
parliament
presiding
officer,
and
can
I
thank
mike
russell
for
so
clearly
restating
that
scotland
did
not
choose
to
leave
the
eu.
There
should
be
no
need
to
consider
how
to
deal
with
exit
and
anything
we
do
cannot
fully
substitute
for
the
loss
of
membership.
From
the
beginning,
my
priority
has
been
to
protect
our
environmental
standards
in
scotland,
I'm
proud
of
our
environmental
record
in
scotland
and
our
commitment
to
respond
to
the
global
crises
of
climate
and
biodiversity
loss.
E
Our
natural
world
supports
our
well-being
and
our
reputation
as
a
nation.
Natural
resources
contribute
to
our
society
and
economy
in
countless
ways,
and
we
must
protect
these
precious
assets
from
the
threats
arising
from
brexit.
In
response,
I
committed
to
maintain
or
enhance
our
environmental
standards.
I
have
made
clear
that
we
should
align
with
future
developments
in
eu
standards
wherever
possible.
E
These
objectives
have
been
shared
by
many
across
scotland,
in
our
public
bodies,
in
our
nature
charities
and
across
society.
That
is
the
context
for
the
development
of
the
environmental
proposals.
In
part,
two
of
this
bill.
We
have
already
completed
a
huge
body
of
work
to
ensure
that
our
regulatory
systems
are
robust
and
will
continue
to
protect
standards,
and
earlier
this
year
I
published
our
environment
strategy,
vision
and
outcomes
that
will
set
a
framework
for
future
policy.
E
The
measures
in
this
bill
provide
for
continuity
and
domestic
law
of
two
key
features
of
the
eu
structures
that
we
are
losing
to
ensure
that
we
can
continue
to
protect
environmental
standards.
The
proposals
establish
in
domestic
law
guiding
environmental
principles.
This
will
ensure
that
the
principles
continue
to
underpin
the
development
of
our
environmental
policy
and
law.
The
proposals
will
also
create
a
proportionate
system
of
domestic
environmental
governance
to
replace
the
role
of
the
eu
institutions
in
ensuring
environmental
law
is
fully
implemented
and
effective,
and
this
is
becoming
urgent.
E
So
I'd
like
to
echo
mike
russell's
thanks
to
the
finance
and
constitution
committee,
the
environment,
climate
change
and
land
reform
committee
and
the
delegated
powers
and
law
reform
committee
for
their
scrutiny
of
the
bill
to
date.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
all
those
who've
contributed
their
views.
I
think
that,
with
the
hard
work
of
the
committees
of
the
clerks
and
of
stakeholders
willing
to
give
evidence
remotely,
the
proposals
in
the
bill
have
had
a
thorough
airing.
E
E
However,
we
do
need
to
be
careful
that,
in
seeking
to
maintain
what
we
are
losing
with
eu
exit,
we
keep
the
balance
right
with
domestic
law
and
procedures.
So,
yes,
we
want
to
maintain
what
we
had
within
the
eu,
but
careful
thought
must
be
given
to
how
best
to
translate
supranational
arrangements
to
that
domestic
law.
As
mike
russell
said,
it
must
be
for
this
parliament
to
determine
our
environmental
standards
out
with
the
eu.
E
He
made
a
clear
argument
against
an
automatic
or
rules-based
application
of
the
alignment
power
and
the
real
world
policy
environment
is
just
too
complex
to
make
a
sensible
set
of
rules
by
flatly
applying
criteria.
There
is
a
similar
case
to
be
made
with
respect
to
part
two.
We
need
measures
to
continue
the
effect
of
environmental
principles
and
governance,
but
no
rigid
set
of
rules
that
can
replace
the
judgments
to
be
made
by
ministers.
E
There
is
no
rigid
set
of
rules
that
can
replace
the
judgments
to
be
made
by
ministers
in
parliament
about
future
policies
and
legislation.
The
environmental
principles
must
remain
what
they
are
in
the
eu
context:
a
central
guide
to
good
decision
making
to
be
weighed
alongside
other
matters
and
objectives.
E
Environmental
governance
must
keep
public
authorities
in
line
with
the
laws
passed
by
this
parliament,
but
must
not
shift
decision-making
from
this
parliament
to
another
body
or
to
the
courts
and,
of
course,
I'll
be
flexible
at
stage
three
at
stage
two.
But
I
do
believe
that
the
fundamentals
of
the
measures
in
the
bill
are
what
we
need
to
have
in
place
as
limited
time.
A
A
Yeah,
yes,
well,
it's
been
a
mystery
tour
for
us
all
this
afternoon.
It
was
ten
minutes
for
the
cabinet.
Secretaries,
you've
not
moved
the
motion.
Please
the
motion
there.
We
are
we're
all
inventing
the
script
as
we
go
along.
I
now
call
him
bruce
crawford,
hopefully
on
behalf
of
the
finance
and
constitution
committee,
seven
minutes,
mr
crawford
convener.
F
F
Would
you
like
to
thank
my
msp
colleagues
for
the
way
about
the
process
guests
on
occasions
not
agreeing
but
being
able
to
do
so
amicably
and
with
professionalism
technology?
As
lead
committee,
we
focused
on
part
one
of
the
bill
environment,
climate
change
and
land
reform
committee
focused
on
part
two
of
the
bill.
F
My
committee,
with
the
exception
of
our
conservative
colleagues,
supported
the
principle
that
the
keeping
peace
power
as
it
exists
in
the
bill,
but
the
committee
does
not
accept
the
use
of
the
power
should
be
entirely
at
the
discretion
of
the
scottish
government.
The
committee
recommends
that
the
bill
should
be
amended
to
require
the
scottish
government
to
provide
guidance
setting
out
the
criteria
which
will
apply
to
the
use
of
the
power.
F
F
The
kitty
welcomes
the
commitment
from
the
cabinet
secretary
to
work
with
the
parliament
to
agree
an
appropriate
and
proportionate
decision-making
framework
for
future
alignment
with
eu
law
and
therefore,
please.
The
cabinet
secretary
is
committed
to
publishing
such
guidance,
but,
given
the
future,
governments
may
not
always
be
as
to
a
comedy
thing
as
a
current
one.
There
may
be
still
some
room
for
further
discussion
on
this
matter.
It's
maybe
therefore
essential
that
the
parliament
gives
serious
consideration
to
the
level
of
scrutiny
of
the
keeping
pace
power
which
it
was
appropriate
and
proportionate.
F
Specifically,
what
rules
should
the
parliament
stakeholders
and
why
the
public
have
in
relation
to
both
the
decisions
on
whether
or
not
to
keep
peace
and
early
engagement?
In
the
policy
development
process,
especially
where
there
are
opportunities
for
ministerial
discretion
and
how
to
keep
pace,
the
committee
recognizes
that
until
now,
parliament
has
had
a
very
limited
role
in
relation
to
eu
policy
development
process
and
there
may
be
a
potential
risk.
The
eu
policy
making
process
is
replaced
by
executive
driven
process
which
allows
for
significant
levels
of
ministerial
discretion.
F
F
We
also
requested
a
committee
debate
in
the
chamber
before
christmas
recess
and
we
encourage
all
committee
conveners
or
representatives
from
each
committee
to
speak
in
that
debate.
Saying
officer,
a
key
question
for
the
committee
is
whether
the
extent
of
the
secondary
powers
and
the
bill
are
appropriate.
F
However,
the
committee
recommends
that
further
considerations
needed
in
relation
to
implementation
of
significant
new
policy
proposals
that
have
no
equivalent
in
retained.
Eu
law
committee
therefore
recommended
that
the
scottish
government
give
serious
consideration
to
the
drprc's
view
that
primary
legislation
is
the
most
appropriate
vehicle
for
domestic
law
to
implement
significant
new
policy
proposals
that
have
no
equivalent
in
retained
eu
law,
and
that
this
applies
particularly
to
eu
directives
and
in
the
event
that
the
power
is
not
amended
to
that
effect.
The
committee
recommends.
The
choice
of
procedure
is
expanded
to
include
super
affirmative
procedure.
F
I
know
the
cabinet
secretary's
view
attempting
to
limit
the
scope
of
power
in
section
1-1
to
exclude
significant
new
proposals
would
not
be
practical,
given
the
significant
legal
difficulties
involved
in
defining
that
in
the
face
of
the
bill.
I
also
know
what
the
cabinet
secretary
has
said.
He's
content
to
discuss
this
matter
further
important
consideration
for
the
committee,
and
indeed
the
parliament
is
the
extent
to
which
the
keeping
face
power
may
be
subject
to
statutory
and
non-statutory
constraints.
F
Well,
in
principle,
the
keeping
pace
power
is
very
wide.
In
practice,
it
may
be
much
more
limited
in
particular,
although
my
conservative
colleagues
disagree,
the
committee
notes
that
the
mutual
recognition
and
non-discrimination
principles
in
the
uk
internal
market
bill
have
the
potential
to
significantly
undermine
the
use,
the
keeping
pace
power.
Indeed,
the
committee
believes
that
the
internal
market
bill
and
the
market
access
principles
in
particular
undermine
the
whole
basis
of
demolition.
F
F
The
committee
remains
very
supportive
of
the
scottish
government
view
that
common
framework
should
not
be
imposed
by
the
uk
government
committee
supports
a
system
of
common
frameworks
or
trade
in
the
uk
markets.
The
common
framework
is
to
be
agreed
between
devolved
governments
and
the
uk
government.
However,
those
equally
important
that
common
frameworks
are
not
effectively
imposed
on
the
parliament
and
stakeholders
without
meaningful,
consult
consultation
and
opportunity
to
propose
amendments.
F
A
G
Thank
you,
president
officer.
I
speak
today
as
the
convener
of
environment,
climate
change
and
land
reform
committee.
The
committees
outlined
a
number
of
areas
where
further
information
and
action
is
required
in
relation
to
part
two
of
the
bill.
The
committee
has
previously
highlighted
its
serious
concerns
about
scottish
minister's
ability
within
the
devolution
settlement
to
exercise
their
powers
and
evolved
environmental
competence
following
eu
exit.
G
Certainly
in
the
time
that
I've
convened
the
committee
we've
yet
to
receive
sufficient
information
on,
and
my
committee
agrees
with,
the
finance
and
constitution
community.
On
that
point,
the
committee
does
agree
the
general
principles
of
part
two
of
the
bill
and
then
so
far,
that
seeks
to
provide
legal
recognition
for
the
environmental
principles
and
oversight
of
the
implementation
of
and
compliance
with
environmental
law
following
eu
exit.
G
The
committee
certainly
supports
the
commitment
to
maintain
or
exceed
eu
environmental
law
to
ensure
the
continuity
continuation
of
higher
environmental
standards
in
scotland,
and
we
believe
that
this
bill
is
fundamental
in
consolidating
the
framework
for
environmental
law
and
other
policy
and
law
which
impacts
our
environment,
and
I
apologize
for
the
noises
off
I'll
keep
going
on
balance.
We
are
content
that
the
keep
pest
power
is
discretionary,
but
we
also
think
there
needs
to
be
a
more
more
clarity
over
when
the
scottish
government
would
use
the
regulation
making
power
under
section
one.
G
G
We
welcome
a
statutory
footing
on
for
the
principles
in
the
bill,
but
we
believe
in
order
to
provide
legal
continuity,
we
also
need
to
set
a
high
level
of
environmental
protection
without
this
being
on
a
statutory
footing.
This
scottish
government's
objective
to
achieve
a
high
level
of
environmental
protection,
the
statement
of
their
policy
intention,
and
we
believe
this
does
not
necessarily
provide
legal
continuity
for
any
subsequent
governments.
G
We've
said
in
our
report
that
we
need
to
know
how
these
principles
will
sit
in
the
broader
constitutional
and
legal
context
and
how
they'll
be
applied.
We
also
need
further
information
on
how
the
uk
internal
market
bill
will
influence
scott
scottish
minister's
ability
to
act
on
the
environmental
principles.
G
Let
me
now
turn
to
environmental
standards.
Scotland.
We
asked
whether
this
body
will
provide
continuity
of
environmental
governance,
and
we
heard
there
are
potentially
a
couple
of
governance
gaps
specifically
in
the
ability
to
pursue
matters
at
the
level
of
an
individual
case.
The
investigation
of
cases
where
the
environment
is
an
element,
but
not
the
core
of
the
matter
and
in
climate
governance.
G
More
generally,
under
the
proposed
system,
an
element
of
government
previously
fulfilled
by
the
european
commission
is
now
going
to
is
now
ultimately
going
to
end
up
in
parliament
through
the
lodging
of
an
improvement
report,
and
this
will
impact
parliamentary
committees,
particularly
ours.
When
we
question
the
capacity
and
access
to
expertise
of
committees
to
consider
such
reports.
G
There's
a
long-standing
debate
also
about
the
need
for
an
environmental
court
in
scotland,
and
we
have
flagged
this
in
our
report.
We
need
to
rationalize
how
legal
issues
and
appeals
are
determined
across
regulatory
frameworks
affecting
environmental
issues,
and
we
firmly
believe
that
compliance
appeal
cases
need
to
be
heard
by
people
with
the
expertise
and
experience
in
environmental
law.
We're
keen
to
know
how
the
scottish
government
plans
to
build
and
consolidate
environmental
law
expertise
across
the
judiciary
and
tandem
was
setting
up
of
ess.
G
In
conclusion,
presiding
officer,
the
committee
was
of
the
view
that
the
bill's
success
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
environment
depends
on
a
satisfactory
response
to
the
issues
we've
raised
in
their
report
and
strength
strengthening
in
the
areas
we've
outlined.
But,
as
I
said
earlier,
we
support
the
principles
at
this
stage.
Thank
you
for
signing.
A
H
Six
minutes,
mr
locker,
thank
you,
president
officer.
I
don't
have
any
pets
with
me.
As
far
as
I
can
see.
Let
me
add
my
thanks
to
to
all
the
hard
work
of
the
clarks
conveners
and
the
others
in
the
various
committees
overseeing
this
legislation.
The
context
for
this
debate
is
that
scotland
is
now
facing
an
unprecedented
recession,
with
the
economy
declining
by
20
on
unemployment
increasing
rapidly
and
following
the
additional
restrictions
announced
earlier
today.
The
priority
for
this
parliament
must
be
to
protect
jobs
and
livelihoods
and
rebuild
scotland's
economy.
H
Instead,
however,
we
are
debating
a
continuity
bill
that
will
do
the
opposite:
a
legislation
that
will
impose
barriers
to
trade,
increase,
the
cost
of
doing
business
and,
ultimately,
I'm
afraid,
cost
jobs
and
livelihoods
across
scotland.
Because
there's
no
doubt
this
legislation
will
damage
scotland's
trade
with
the
rest
of
the
uk
and
beyond,
and
those
are
not
just
my
views.
Those
are
the
concerns
raised
by
stakeholders
giving
evidence
to
the
finance
and
constitution
committee.
H
I
will
in
a
minute
was
that
mr
mason,
I
will
in
a
minute
mr
mason,
according
to
the
nf
us,
for
example,
the
keeping
pace
powers
in
part.
One
of
the
legislation
has,
in
their
words
the
clear
potential
to
lead
to
substantial
regulatory
and
economic
divergence
with
the
rest
of
the
uk,
which
for
them
is
a
major
concern.
H
Given
that
over
60
percent
of
scotland's
agriculture
and
food
exports
go
to
the
rest
of
the
uk,
and
these
concerns
are
not
just
limited
to
agriculture,
because,
according
to
the
fraser
founder,
more
than
550
000
jobs
across
all
sectors
in
scotland
depend
on
that
barrier-free.
Access
to
the
uk
internal
market,
and
I
will
give
way
to
the
cabinet
secretary
cabinet.
H
B
Wonder
if
the
member
has
read
the
submission
from
the
nfu
to
the
internal
market
bill
which
talks
about
the
difficulties
that
will
be
experienced
by
the
internal
market
bill
and
those
proposals
being
made
and
the
effect
they
will
have
on
trade?
Would
it
not
be
better
to
remain
in
the
eu
which
gets
rid
of
all
these
problems?
And
that
would
help
all
of
us,
and
that
would
mean
that
the
recession
that
we
are
facing
would
not
be
made
worse
by
brexit,
because
it
will
be
dean.
Lockhart.
H
This
legislation
will
require
firms
in
scotland
to
comply
with
the
myriad
of
divergent
regulations,
including
devolved
law
that
keeps
pace,
devolved
law
that
does
not
and
different
regulations
in
other
parts
of
the
uk,
which
no
longer
follow
eu
regulations.
The
committee
heard
evidence
that
this
will
lead
to
scotland
becoming
a
regulatory,
no
man's
land,
with
the
inevitable
consequence
of
these
proposals
that
it
will
increase
the
expense
and
complexity
of
doing
business,
increased
cost
for
consumers
and,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
cost
jobs
and
livelihoods.
H
All
at
a
time
when
thousands
of
businesses
across
scotland
are
already
struggling
to
survive
under
covered
restrictions,
but
presenting
officer.
The
ultimate
indictment
is
that
this
legislation
will
not
even
achieve
its
stated
aim
of
keeping
scotland
aligned
with
eu
regulations.
As
the
cabinet
secretary
mentioned
in
his
opening
remarks,
the
faculty
of
advocates
has
pointed
out
that
the
scottish
government
will
not
be
able
to
keep
pace
in
areas
of
eu
law
which
depend
on
reciprocal
arrangements
between
member
states
and
commenting
on
the
proposed
legislation.
H
Eu
officials
have
said
the
following:
this
legislation
could
create
a
difficult
position
for
scotland
and
wouldn't
be
effective.
Many
regulations
which
are
passed
by
the
eu
will
be
difficult
to
implement
and
will
not
apply
to
scotland.
So
I
look
forward
to
the
cabinet
secretary
addressing
these
this
eu
response
in
his
closing
remarks,
but
presiding
officer,
this
bill
will
not
only
damage
scotland's
economic
recovery.
H
H
Paragraph
48
of
the
committee
report
refers
to
the
keeping
pace
powers
and
I
quote
as
substantial
henry
viii
powers.
In
other
words,
power
switch
will
enable
scottish
ministers
to
introduce
new
laws,
including
significant
new
policies.
By
means
of
secondary
legislation
without
any
parliamentary
scrutiny
or
consultation
with
stakeholders,
our
concerns
in
this
area
are
shared
by
the
law
society
of
scotland,
the
faculty
of
advocates,
the
nfus
and
a
number
of
constitutional
experts,
including
professor
mccarg,
who
gave
the
following
evidence
to
the
committee.
H
In
these
circumstances,
it
seems
very
hard
to
justify
pushing
such
an
extent
extensive
power
into
the
hands
of
scottish
ministers,
I'm
presiding
officer.
We
agree,
as
does
the
nfus
who
told
the
committee.
There
is
an
absolute
requirement
that
scotland,
through
the
scottish
parliament,
retains
an
ability
to
adapt
new
laws
for
scottish
circumstances.
H
I'm
presiding
officer,
I've
read
the
cabinet
secretary's
response
to
these
stakeholder
concerns,
and
I've
listened
to
what
he
has
said
today
about
some
of
the
amendments.
He
will
bring
forward
at
stage
two
and
I
have
to
say
he
provides
no
assurance
whatsoever
in
respect
of
this
parliament
having
the
proper
level
of
scrutiny
and
given
these
concerns
I
have
outlined.
A
number
of
stakeholders
have
provided
recommendations
on
how
this
legislation
can
be
improved.
H
We
will
be
listening
to
those
recommendations
of
the
nfus
and
other
key
stakeholders
and
we
will
be
bringing
appropriate
amendments
at
stage
two
to
address
these
concerns
and
presiding
officer.
Let
me
conclude:
we
will
be
voting
against
this
legislation
at
decision
time
today.
It
gives
excessive
powers
to
scottish
ministers
to
implement
significant
new
policy
changes
with
no
parliamentary
scrutiny.
It
will
turn
this
parliament
into
a
passive
rule
taker
and
it
will
create
barriers
to
trade
between
scotland
and
the
rest
of
the
uk,
a
market
that
accounts
for
more
than
60
percent
of
our
trade.
A
I
I
I
would
like
to
thank
the
hard
work
of
all
on
the
finance
and
constitution
committee
and
the
environment,
climate
change
and
land
reform
committee
who
have
done
the
work
to
scrutinize
the
bill,
particularly
the
support
of
the
clerks
in
bringing
together
the
stage
one
reports.
I
would
also
like
to
take
the
time
to
thank
all
who
gave
evidence
and
helped
advise
the
committees
through
the
scrutiny
of
this
bill.
I
These
general
principles
are
supported
by
the
labour
party
and
we
will
be
supporting
the
government
with
the
progression
of
this
bill
today.
Our
view
is
that,
at
this
stage
we
agree
in
principle
with
creating
new
powers
to
allow
the
government
to
keep
pace
with
eu
laws.
It's
particularly
desirable
to
be
able
to
deliver
the
strong
environmental
standards
we
want
to
see
in
scotland.
I
It
would
be
impractical
to
require
all
changes
in
the
eu
law
to
be
given
effect
by
primary
legislation
in
the
scottish
parliament.
This
would
hold
up
important
legislative
activity.
However,
some
future
changes
in
eu
law
could
involve
substantial
policy
considerations,
which
parliament
and
stakeholders
must
have
the
opportunity
to
scrutinise
and
influence.
The
government
must
set
out
detailed
guidance
for
how
these
powers
would
be
used
and
alternative
processes
for
when
consultation
is
required.
I
Scottish
labor
welcomes
the
proposal
of
a
new
environmental
governance
body-
environmental
standards,
scotland,
but
this
has
to
be
independent
from
government.
We
believe
that
climate
change,
individual
cases
and
fiscal
measures
should
all
be
included
in
the
remit
of
this
body
and
that
exemptions
to
investigations
should
be
prevented,
or
at
least
have
to
go
through
primary
legislation.
I
We
welcome
that
the
eu
guiding
principles
are
incorporated
in
the
bill,
as
argued
by
scottish
labour
in
the
previous
continuity
bill.
Labour
are
considering
amendments
at
stage
two
to
add
further
principles,
including
recognition
of
human
health
impacts.
We
also
believe
the
bill
should
be
strengthened
at
stage
two
to
act
in
accordance
with
the
environmental
principles.
I
The
keeping
pace
pairs
should
not
be
entirely
at
the
discretion
of
the
scottish
government,
and
there
must
be
greater
clarity
on
how
the
scottish
government
proposes
to
use
the
powers.
I
am
pleased
by
the
indications
from
the
cabinet
secretary
to
the
finance
and
constitution
committee
that
he
intends
to
work
with
the
parliament
to
agree
an
appropriate
and
proportionate
decision-making
framework
for
all
future
alignment
with
eu
law.
I
I
welcome
his
letter
to
the
finance
committee
on
tuesday
this
week,
which
stated
that
he
would
commit
to
publishing
the
guidance
which
will
be
used
to
inform
decisions
on
the
use
of
this
power.
This
is
a
welcome
step,
presiding
officer,
however,
worth
noting
moving
forward
with
this
bill.
The
law
society
of
scotland
stay
in
their
briefing.
That
is
suggested
that
the
power
to
make
regulations
under
section
one
should
be
restricted
to
where
the
changes
in
eu
law
do
not
involve
substantial
policy
considerations
unless
they
are
subject
to
super
affirmative
procedure.
I
I
think
this
point
is
worth
bearing
in
note
from
my
reading
of
the
cabinet.
Secretary's
letter
to
the
committee,
he
appears
not
to
have
taken
this
suggestion
on
board
and
I'm
hoping
that
an
agreement
can
be
made
that
satisfies
the
level
of
scrutiny
that
will
be
required
before
taking
on
board
new
rules
in
this
country.
The
national
farmers
union
have
also
said
that
they
agree
with
the
recommendations
of
both
the
finance
and
constitution
committee
and
the
environment
and
climate
change
and
land
reform
committee
that
use
of
the
power
in
part.
I
I
It
is
ludicrous
for
the
scottish
tories
to
continue
to
line
up
with
boris
johnson
and
attack
the
environmental
rights
of
this
parliament
and
of
the
people
of
scotland.
So
we
will
work
together
to
ensure
that,
at
stage
two
and
stage
three,
we
improve
the
legislation
and
put
it
through.
Thank
you.
Thank.
J
So
it's
not
a
pick
and
mix.
It's
not
norway,
light
it's
about
eu
membership
and
the
bill
at
stage.
Two
will
be
a
test
for
scottish
government's
commitment
to
that
goal
of
alignment
and
reassession
now
the
foundation
stone
to
this,
of
course,
is
the
keeping
pace
power,
and
I
welcome
the
government's
commitment
to
making
the
decision-making
framework
around
it
more
democratically
accountable,
but
it
still
needs
a
direction.
It
needs
a
statutory
purpose
that
actually
nails
what
we
are
aiming
for.
J
But
I
do
have
my
doubts
because
in
the
government's
response
to
the
environment
committee
stage,
one
report
it
says
and
I'll
quote,
when
enhanced
environmental
standards
are
introduced
in
the
eu,
we
can
expect
a
full
and
lively
policy
debate
about
how
scotland
should
respond.
Well.
You
know
that
worries
me,
because,
while
there
will
be
eu
laws
that
are
no
longer
functionally
relevant
to
a
departed
member
state,
there
are
those
that
set
core
environmental
standards.
J
That
will
be-
and
actually
I
don't
want,
a
lively
debate
about
whether
we
should
be
holding
off
tackling
air
pollution
that
causes
asthma
in
a
child
or
whether
we
should
keep
spraying
a
pesticide
that
decimates
bee
populations.
What
I
want
is
european
wide
action,
as
the
baseline
as
the
baseline
and
on
the
four
key
environmental
principles
that
the
bill
does
attempt
to
enshrine.
J
J
There
is
an
opportunity,
though,
I
think,
to
deliver
real
progress
while
staying
on
that
parallel
path
to
reassession,
applying
environmental
principles
to
budgets,
for
example,
would
drive
the
green
recovery
that
I
think
we
all
want.
The
precautionary
principle
would
help
put
preventative
spending
first,
stopping
costly
problems
from
becoming
unmanageable
in
the
future
environmental
standards.
Scotland,
if
it
is
to
replace
the
european
commission,
needs
to
be
strong,
independent,
well
resourced
and
rigorously
appointed
by
parliament.
It
needs
to
operate
under
the
widest
definition
of
the
environment,
including
climate
change.
J
It
needs
to
consider
individual
complaints
as
case
studies
to
improve
compliance
with
the
law
and
to
suggest
changes
to
the
law
itself.
Ess
needs
to
be
a
watchdog
that
has
one
eye
on
the
european
and
international
legislation,
with
the
other
eye
firmly
focused
to
ensure
that
we're
actually
keeping
pace
at
home,
presiding
officer.
There
is
acres
of
room
for
government
and
the
majority
of
msps
in
this
parliament.
Should
they
wish
to
improve
this
bill
at
stage
two
for
the
sake
of
our
environment,
our
health.
J
K
Thank
you,
deputy
presiding
officer,
grind
to
stank
by
start
by
thanking
the
finance
and
the
clear
committees
for
the
work
to
date
on
this
bill,
it's
not
a
bill.
Many
of
us
would
have
wanted
to
see
and
certainly
further
highlights,
the
needless
damage
disruption
and
uncertainty
caused
by
brexit
as
scottish
environment
link
point
out.
80
of
scotland's
environmental
protections
currently
stem
from
eu
legislation.
The
climate
emergency
and
tackling
biodiversity
loss
demand
no
let
up
in
robust
standards,
and
so
this
is
what
we
must
look
at
to
achieve
through
this
bill.
K
Another
problem
which
stage
two
and
the
government
will
have
to
address,
stems
from
the
power
the
bill
gives
ministers
to
keep
pace
on,
not
actually
requiring
them
to
do
so.
Nobody
else
is
allowed
to
insist
that
ministers
keep
pace.
Only
ministers
can
choose
as
things
currently
stand.
I
was
struck
that
mr
russell
told
the
committee
quote
that
those
who
are
opposed
to
any
keeping
pace
could
frustrate
the
legitimate
will
of
the
scottish
people
to
keep
pace
with
high
standards.
K
He
then
spent
the
rest
of
his
time
saying
that
he
wasn't
going
to
keep
pace
with
everything
for
a
whole
series
of
reasons,
so
it
turns
out
that
he
might
yet
find
himself
in
the
position
of
frustrating
the
legitimate
will
of
the
scottish
people.
Now
the
law
society,
the
faculty
of
advocates
and
others
have
put
forward
suggestions
about
how
this
might
be
addressed.
I
know
professor
michael
keating
put
it
well
and
he
said
we
need
to
know
on
what
basis
things
are
going
to
be
selected.
There's
been
some
suggestion
of
an
annual
report.
K
Looking
ahead
to
anticipate
eu
legislation
mistake
whether
government
intends
to
keep
pace.
There
are
a
variety
of
options
that
the
cabinet
secretary
is
referred
to,
perhaps
the
use
of
guidance,
but
I
think
the
bottom
line
is
that
this
does
need
to
be
addressed
again
at
stage
two
others
have
flagged.
Other
concerns
flagged
up
by
the
committee
include
protecting
the
independence
of
environmental,
scotland
and
I
can
certainly
understand
those
anxieties.
K
I
think
this
bill
does
to
allow
an
opportunity
for
the
government,
at
least,
to
commit
to
consult
on
an
environment
court
allowing
any
incoming
government
in
may
to
decide
on
how
best
to
proceed,
and
I
hope
this
is
something
that
the
cabinet
secretary
will
consider
and
look
to
take
forward,
at
least
in
terms
of
its
initial
steps.
Meantime
again,
I
thank
the
committees
again
for
their
work
to
date
and
assure
them
of
scottish
liberal
democrat
support
in
taking
forward
the
improvements
needed
to
minimize
the
damaging
legacy
of
brexit,
particularly
in
the
area
of
environmental
policy.
L
M
Thank
you
very
much
presiding
officer.
We
are
now
more
than
four
years
on
from
the
disastrous
and
irresponsible
brexit
referendum.
So
it's
worth
reminding
ourselves
of
the
outcome
of
that
vote
here
in
scotland
remain
62
leave
38
every
single
local
authority
area
in
scotland
voting
remain
so
this
legislation
has
an
overwhelming
mandate
from
the
people
of
scotland.
M
It
has
been
forced
on
us
by
the
uk
government's
actions,
not
just
in
taking
us
out
of
the
world's
largest
single
market,
not
just
in
ignoring
compromised
solutions
from
the
scottish
government,
such
as
remaining
in
the
single
market
and
customs
union,
but
also
in
refusing
to
extend
the
transition
period
despite
covered
and
despite
failing
to
secure
any
kind
of
trade
deal
worth
the
name,
certainly
not
the
canada
double
plus.
That
was
the
uk
minister's
catchphrase.
M
M
I
know
the
scottish
environment
link
welcomed
the
bill's
intention
to
embed
the
four
eu
environmental
principles
directly
into
scots
law.
These
are
the
precautionary
principle,
the
polluter
pays
principle,
the
rectification
of
source
principle
and
the
preventative
action
principle,
and
I
know
that
scottish
environment
link
would
like
us
to
go
further
still
so,
instead
of
requiring
ministers
to
have
regard
to
the
four
principles
at
the
bill,
states
link
wish
it
to
say
that
the
policy
will
be
based
on
the
four
principles.
M
President
officer,
I
must
comment
on
paragraph
87
of
the
finance
and
constitution
committee's
report,
which
refers
to
the
uk
internal
market
bill
and
notes
that
the
uk
international
market
bill
could
significantly
undermine
the
use
of
the
keeping
pace
power
in
this
continuity
bill
and
indeed,
is
incompatible
with
the
evolution.
As
my
colleague,
bruce
colleague
has
said,
presiding
over
my
committee,
the
cultural
tourism,
europe
and
external
affairs
committee
has
also
taken
evidence
on
the
internal
market
bill
and
we
came
to
exactly
the
same
conclusion.
M
That's
why
more
and
more
scots
understand
that
only
bears
swimming
the
full
status
of
an
independent
country.
Can
we
prevent
them
smashing
scotland's
powers
to
pieces,
but
independent
scotland
is
coming
presiding
officer
and
it
will
be
an
independent,
equal
member
of
the
european
union.
The
continuity
bill
will
help
ensure
we
are
ready
to
rejoin
europe
in
a
smoother
way
as
possible,
and
I
therefore
have
no
hesitation
in
supporting
it
today.
Thank
you
very
much.
D
Thank
you,
deputy
precision
officer
and
just
as
was
the
case
when
we
debated
the
uk
internal
market
bill
a
few
weeks
ago.
Parliament's
main
purpose
with
regard
to
the
end
of
the
transition
period
must
surely
be
to
ensure
that
all
the
post-brexit
structures
which
will
be
put
in
place
will
ensure
that
have
the
best
interests
of
scotland
at
heart.
Her
relationships
with
the
rest
of
the
uk
and,
of
course,
with
the
international
community,
most
especially
those
which
protect
the
internal
market
and
scotland's
ability
to
be
a
thriving
nation
in
the
future.
D
To
this
end,
it's
surely
important
that
scotland's
governments
work
together
and
do
not
seek
to
create
any
division,
and
that
is
obviously
true
for
the
environment,
just
as
as
much
as
it
is
true
for
other
aspects
of
policy,
and
I
think
rosanna
cunningham
was
correct
when
she
said
that
we
can
all
agree
that
it
is
essential
that
scotland
does
not
lose
crucial
environmental
safeguards.
As
the
uk
exits,
the
eu
safeguards
which
have
increasing
relevance
as
the
focus
on
the
environment
becomes
ever
more
prominent.
D
So,
with
reference
to
part
two
of
the
bill
relating
to
the
environment,
there
is
general
agreement
across
all
the
parties
about
the
need
for
scotland
to
adopt
the
highest
environmental
standards
and
for
a
legal
basis
to
protect
these
environmental
principles.
But
there
is
much
less
agreement
about
the
structures
which
need
to
be
put
in
place.
To
achieve
this.
As
a
convener
of
the
environment
committee
said,
we
have
broadly
agreed
on
some
key
principles
that
would
have
to
be
adhered
to
for
the
highest
standards,
for
example,
if
the
polluter
pays.
D
But
we
are
not
agreed
about
exactly
how
to
do
that.
For
example,
some
witnesses
especially
link
and
the
national
trust
for
scotland
that
the
environment
committee
were
seeking
confirmation
that
some
aspects
of
eu
environmental
law
should
be
written
into
the
bill
specifically
requiring
ministers
to
keep
pace
with
environmental
standards.
D
So
there's
a
lot
of
question
marks
over
that
and
it's
for
these
reasons
that
these
benches
want
to
see
structures
put
in
place
which
permit
maximum
flexibility
when
it
comes
to
achieving
the
highest
standards.
So
it
should
not
just
be
a
case
of
aspiring
to
follow
eu
law
where
there
would
be
no
guarantee
that
all
eu
standards
would
automatically
be
the
ones
that
we
wish
to
adopt.
D
Secondly,
we
want
to
see
good
governance
when
it
comes
to
parliamentary
scrutiny
and
the
agencies
which
oversee
environmental
standards,
and
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
issues
that
have
been
raised
at
both
committees
about
how
we
do
that,
and
I
entirely
accept
the
comments
that
have
been
made
from
others
about
environmental
standards.
Scotland,
which,
in
principle,
I
think,
is
a
very
good
idea,
but
whether
it
has
sufficient
independence
from
government
and
its
ability
to
have
a
separation
of
powers,
I
think
is,
is
a
major
issue
within
this
bill,
deputy
side
officer.
D
May
I
just
conclude
with
reiterating
the
point
that
I
made
at
the
start,
namely
that
the
post-brexit
brexit
structures
must
put
in
place
what
is
in
the
best
interests
of
scotland
and
the
uk,
both
in
terms
of
economic
growth
and
social
cohesion,
and
that
both
governments
have
to
work
together
to
deliver?
What
is
surely-
and
I
think
the
public
has
the
right
to
expect.
Thank
you.
N
N
This
bill
is
an
important
part
of
that
response,
in
particular
by
enabling
scottish
ministers
to
make
provision
in
secondary
legislation
to
allow
scots
law
to
be
able
to
keep
pace
with
complex
eu
law
and
devolved
areas
where
appropriate.
Out
with
the
european
union.
Scotland
will,
of
course,
no
longer
automatically
be
subject
to
new
eu
regulations,
nor
will
it
be
obliged
to
implement
eu
directives.
N
That
does
not,
however,
preclude
this
parliament
speaking
to
mirror
eu
law
where
it
determines
that
is
appropriate,
and
I
wish
to
stress
at
this
point
that
it
will
be
for
this
parliament
ultimately
to
decide
whether
or
not
to
incorporate
any
new
aspect
of
eu
law
into
scots
law
via
this
bill.
All
regulations
in
part,
one
of
the
bill
are
subject
to
the
affirmative
or
negative
procedure.
N
Power
remains
with
this
parliament.
The
scottish
government
can
propose,
but
it
is
for
the
parliament
to
decide
whether
to
approve
for
those
who
wish
to
see
an
example
of
scotland
being
compelled
to
be
a
rule
taker
or
for
a
holding
of
powers
by
the
executive.
One
need
look
no
further
than
the
uk
government's
internal
market
bill.
This
uk
government
legislation,
which
was
comprehensively
rejected
by
this
parliament
only
a
few
weeks
ago,
because
he's
a
threat
to
the
bill.
N
Indeed,
as
the
committee
states
in
our
report
on
the
internal
market,
though
lcn,
we
believe
that
the
internal
market
bill
and
the
market
access
principles
in
particular
undermine
the
whole
basis
of
devolution,
presiding
officer.
This
state
of
affairs
serves
as
yet
another
example
of
the
inadequacy
of
the
current
constitutional
arrangements.
N
O
Thank
you
very
much,
much
presiding
on
officer.
The
continuity
bill
is
fundamental
to
evolve
settlement
as
brexit
deadlines.
Sadly,
approach
all
too
fast,
the
bill
is
introduced
and
the
scrutiny
so
far
afforded
by
both
committees
is
significant.
I
tend
to
focus,
though,
on
some
of
the
concerns
raised
by
the
eclair
committee.
In
our
stage,
one
unanimous
report,
which
I
do
not
believe
have
yet
been
resolved
by
the
scottish
government
response.
O
O
I
was
delighted
when
the
scottish
government
agreed
to
enshrine
the
four
eu
guiding
principles:
precautionary
prevention,
rectification
at
source
and
polluter
pays
in
law
in
the
previous
struck
down.
Community.
Sorry
continuity
bill
due
to
amendments
by
myself
and
mark
rascal.
I
still
ask
the
scottish
government
to
consider
if
it
would
be
necessary
to
refer
explicitly
to
human
health
in
the
precautionary
principle,
with
an
amendment
due
to
the
importance
of
assessing
how
actions
affect
our
human
health
the
four
principles
being
focused
on
as
it
is.
O
I
I
also
think
that
it's
necessary
to
have
a
high
level
environmental
protection
principle
on
the
face,
as
in
the
eclair
committee
report,
recommendation
81,
reflecting
the
treaty
and
functioning
of
the
eu
on
the
functioning
of
the
eu.
I
also
want
to
focus
on
thinking
on
the
integration
principle,
which
I
believe
would
strengthen
the
bill
in
recommendation.
O
O
Turning
to
the
new
body
ess,
our
environmental
laws
are
only
as
good
as
the
institutions
which
uphold
them
and
a
watchdog
can
only
be
robust
and
effective.
It
is
truly
separate
and
independent
of
government.
The
european
commission's
role
in
implementing
and
enforcing
environmental
law
has
been
crucial,
and
this
is
because
of
its
independence
from
member
states,
national
governments.
O
I
still
think
climate
change
should
be
included
in
the
remit,
despite
the
scottish
government
reassurances
and
now
to
exclusion
of
individual
decisions
unless
these
limitations
are
removed.
The
ess
will
not
provide
the
continuity
of
the
existing
eu
arrangements
and
would
represent
a
significant
erosion
of
environmental
governance
in
scotland,
as
well
as
scott's
right
and
ability
to
take
action
on
the
environment.
O
I
also
think
a
more
detailed
definition
of
environment
would
be
valuable.
Finally,
I'm
clear
that
the
the
further
scrutiny
of
section
of
schedule,
rather
one
and
exemptions
in
paragraph
one
two-
is
essential.
The
committee
raised
these
concerns
in
a
recommendation.
180,
the
scottish
government
response
was
detailed
and
helpful,
but
if
the
exception
in
schedule,
one
is
required
for
accounting
or
other
general
reporting
requirements.
O
Could
the
clause
be
more
tightly
drawn
to
allow
for
that
exception,
but
no
others.
I
still
argue
that
the
scope
of
the
exception
is
too
broad.
Finally,
I
support
the
principles
of
the
bill
along
with
our
committee
and
scottish
labour,
and
I
look
forward
to
working
with
all
to
take
forward
the
best
continuity
bill
possible.
Thank
you.
P
One
of
the
first
questions
we
faced
in
the
finance
committee
was
whether
we
needed
this
legislation
at
all.
It
was
suggested
that
primary
legislation
could
be
used
for
every
issue.
However,
I
think
we
accepted
that
this
would
be
impracticable
and
minor
tweaking
of
existing
policies
would
be
best
dealt
with
by
secondary
legislation.
P
Following
on
from
this
was
the
need
for
guidance
on
what
criteria
there
would
be
for
the
scottish
government
using
these
powers.
I
think
it's
agreed
that
guidance
is
required
by
the
government,
but
the
government
does
not
consider
an
amendment
to
the
bill
as
needed.
They
are
committing
to
providing
guidance,
and
I
guess
we
will
go
into
that
in
more
detail
at
stage
two.
P
P
However,
I
take
the
government's
point
that
the
power
needs
to
be
discretionary
as
it
would
not.
It
would
just
not
be
possible
to
keep
pace
with
everything
again.
There
is
the
question
of
volume
of
work
involved
in
keeping
pace
both
for
scottish
government
and
for
parliament,
and
I'm
not
sure
to
be
practical
to
require
the
government
to
report
on
every
single
eu
law
that
has
not
been
kept
pace
with.
P
The
dplr
committee
considers
that
for
major
new
policies,
in
contrast
to
amendments
to
existing
policies,
primary
legislation
in
this
parliament
will
normally
be
the
best
way
to
go.
I
think
the
government
accepts
this
talking
about
quote
areas
of
major
innovation
unquote,
so
that
is
good.
However,
I
note
that
the
government
seems
reluctant
to
have
amendments
to
this
effect
on
the
face
of
the
bill,
apparently
because
they
would
be
difficult
to
ward,
and
I
guess
that
is
a
challenge
for
somebody
to
propose
suitable
amendments
which
the
committee
could
consider
at
stage.
Two.
P
But
again,
the
key
point
is
that
we
want
scotland
to
be
outward
looking
and
international
not
narrowly
focused
on
the
british
or
english
market.
Important
though
that
is,
we
have
also.
We
also
touched
on
common
frameworks
and
they
will
hopefully
be
voluntarily
entered
into
by
all
the
devolved
administrations.
P
P
The
scottish
government
confirms
in
its
response
that
there
should
be
quote
an
appropriate
role
unquote
for
parliament,
and
it
would
be
good
if
we
could
hear
more
detail
on
that
in
due
course.
So
overall,
I
believe
we
can
support
this
bill
in
principle
and
I
hope
members
will
do
so
at
decision
time.
Thank
you.
L
Q
Q
Q
Q
The
coronavirus
pandemic
has
shown
that
we
have
had
to
adapt,
and
now,
more
than
ever,
we
need
to
work
with
the
rest
of
the
uk
and
take
advantage
of
the
benefits
for
being
part
of
this
union
brings
no.
This
parliament's
time
would
be
better
spent
discussing
ways
we
can
create
jobs,
become
world
leaders
in
education
once
more
and
drive
forward
the
revolution.
We
need
to
see
in
tackling
climate
change.
Q
L
R
Thank
you,
presiding
officer.
That's
a
really
hard
act
to
follow
in
a
2016
minister
for
the
cabinet
office,
michael
gove,
mp
said
I
quote,
there
is
a
free
trade
zone
stretching
from
iceland
to
turkey
that
all
european
nations
have
access
to.
After
we
vote
to
leave,
we
will
remain
in
this
zone
and
former
tory
mep
and
founding
member
of
the
vote
leave
campaign.
Daniel
hannan
declared
absolutely
nobody
is
talking
about
threatening
her
place
in
the
single
market.
R
A
direct
consequence
of
this
is
that
a
majority
of
scots-
and
I
want
our
nation
to
be
an
independent
country.
We
could
then
rejoin
the
european
union
and
its
single
market
of
450
million
people.
In
the
meantime,
it's
our
duty
to
prepare
for
this
by
staying
close
to
european
partners.
The
continuity
bill
will
be
a
helpful
instrument
in
allowing
our
businesses
to
keep
pace
with
european
directives
and
regulations,
but
it
makes
sense
to
do
so
happy
today.
An
intervention,
good
luck.
H
R
I
have
to
say
it's
quite
shocking
that
the
kind
of
union
dividend
that
scotland
has
been
subjected
to
what
mr
lockhart
seems
to
believe
is
that
scotland
is
some
kind
of
parasitic
nation
in
which
we
live
off
the
rest
of
the
united
kingdom.
We
all
know
very
well
that
the
uk
government
is
inept
when
it
comes
to
actually
developing
and
growing
scotland's
economy
and
indeed
making
sure
that
we
are
a
country,
that's
able
to
play
a
full
role
in
europe.
R
The
uk
dividend
two
million
people
migrating
out
of
this
country
from
nineteen
fifty
two
thousand
actual
union
dividend,
mr
lockhart
lockhart.
In
the
meantime,
it's
their
duty
to
prepare
for
this,
the
the
the
current
brexit
situation
by
staying
close
to
european
partners
at
a
time
of
huge
economic
uncertainty.
This
bill
will
also
provide
businesses
in
scotland
and
the
eu
with
vital
consistency
and
predictability.
R
I
therefore
also
welcome
the
scottish
government's
willingness
to
prepare
regular
reports
about
the
eu's
upcoming
legislative
priorities
and
updates
on
how
they
may
affect
scotland's
devolved
competencies
yeah.
This
is
about
more
than
just
economics.
The
continuity
bill
will
also
help
us
uphold
the
eu's
core
values
and
principles
which
we
share.
I'm
pleased
the
bill
seeks
to
maintain
or
enhance
the
eu's
high
environmental
protection
standards
after
the
tory's
drag
is
out
of
the
single
market
customs
union
and
the
european
court
of
justice's
jurisdiction.
R
As
a
country,
we
have
world
leading
ambitions
when
it
comes
to
tackling
global
warming
and
will
never
accept
a
post-brexit
race
to
the
bottom
of
environmental
standards.
I
welcome
the
fact
that
this
bill
seeks
to
establish
a
robust
and
independent
environmental
governance
body,
environmental
standards,
scotland,
to
secure
full
and
effective
implementation
of
environmental
legislation.
R
Of
course,
the
current
evolution
arrangement
between
the
scottish
government
will
only
have
discretionary
powers
to
maintain
alignment
and
matters
to
voltage
scottish
parliament.
Sadly,
even
in
these
devolved
policy
areas,
the
uk
government's
unacceptable
internal
market
bill
poses
a
serious
risk
to
our
ability
to
mean
close
alignment
with
the
eu
standards
where
we
choose
to
do
so.
I
share
the
finance
and
constitution
committee's
concerns
that
the
use
of
the
keeping
pest
power
in
the
continuity
bill
may
still
be
undermined
by
the
internal
markets.
R
Market
access
principles,
its
implementation
could
force
us
to
accept
lower
food
or
environmental
standards
elsewhere
against
the
explicit
wish
of
the
wishes
of
the
scottish
parliament
presiding
officer,
the
continuity
bill
is
clearly
a
helpful
and
necessary
instrument
in
reducing
the
economic
shock
of
an
audio
brexit.
It
allows
us
to
maintain
close
alignment
with
european
union
standards
and
involve
the
areas
when
we
consider
it
appropriate
and
practical
to
do
so.
S
Now
the
issues
of
erasmus
research
funding
and
also
international
researchers
were
key
points
and
generally
msps
from
across
the
chamber.
So,
and
these
were
genuine
questions
that
members
were
putting
forward.
So
I
do
find
it
quite
strange
that
the
edward
mountains
comments
a
few
moments
ago.
Just
regarding
sorry,
not
edward
mountain.
S
I'm
sorry
alexander
burnett,
I
do
apologize,
but
I
do
find
it
certainly
very
strange
alexander
burnett's
comments
a
few
moments
ago,
when
just
attempting
to
portray
this
particular
bill
as
as
a
as
some
type
of
grievance
bill,
it
certainly
is
not.
This
is
ability.
I
should
try
to
protect
and
help
our
population
and
also
some
of
the
services
within
scotland.
S
I
thought
that
submission
from
the
faculty
of
advocates
and
their
sufficient
to
the
environment,
climate
change
and
landform
committee
call
for
evidence
on
the
31st
of
july.
2020
was
very
helpful
and
I
quote
after
the
end
of
the
transition
period,
some
areas
craves.
The
subjected
eu
regulation
will
continue
to
require
regulation
at
a
domestic
level
in
the
interests
of
good
government
within
those
areas.
The
subject
matter
may
pertain
to
an
area
within
devolved
competence.
S
A
power
to
adopt
eu
measures
appears
to
us
to
offer
a
vehicle
for
such
necessary
regulation
of
those
areas.
In
future
senators,
I
believe
brexit
should
not
mean
a
race
to
the
bottom
on
environmental
standards,
which
is
why
the
scottish
government
is
absolutely
correct
to
keep
pace
with
eu
regulations.
S
L
T
Thank
you
very
much
presiding
officer.
Well,
I
think
this
has
been
a
really
important
debate
this
afternoon.
We
need
this
debate,
but
it's
clear
from
the
hard
work
of
our
committees
that
it
needs
to
be
improved
and
that
the
scottish
government
should
commit
to
support
a
more
accountable
approach
to
keep
the
democratic
principle
of
important
policies
being
tested
by
parliament,
not
just
scottish
ministers.
T
T
But
it
also
gives
us
the
opportunity
here
to
decide
what
standards
we
wish
to
maintain
in
scotland,
as
brexit
pulls
us
out
of
the
eu
creating
huge
economic
uncertainty
in
the
middle
of
this
pandemic.
So
the
comments
by
alexander
burnett
were
completely
bizarre
and
somewhat
ironic
part.
Two
of
this
bill
sets
out
the
framework
for
keeping
pace
with
eu
environmental
standards
and
as
alec
rowley
made
clear.
Scottish
labour
welcomes
the
proposal
in
this
bill
of
a
new
environmental
governance
body,
but
we
do
believe
that
this
body
needs
to
be
independent
from
the
scottish
government.
T
Now,
as
several
colleagues
have
mentioned,
climate
change,
individual
cases
and
fiscal
measures
should
all
be
included
in
its
remit
and
exemptions
to
investigations
should
be
prevented,
at
least
to
have
to
go
through
primary
legislation,
and
I
think
we
should
take
on
board
the
evidence
from
scottish
environment
link.
Who've
argued
that
the
exemption
of
individual
decisions
overlooks
the
critical
role
that
individual
decisions
have
had
in
setting
precedence
in
the
past.
T
So
we
welcome
the
fact
that
eu
guiding
principles
are
incorporated
in
the
bill,
but,
as
we
argued
in
the
previous
debate,
continuity
bill.
Claudia
bemish
rightly
said
this
afternoon.
We
can
still
do
more
to
strengthen
this
bill
with
better
recognition
of
human
health
impacts
and
environmental
protection,
and
we
also
feel
having
looked
at
the
evidence
that
if
some
future
changes
in
eu
law
could
involve
substantial
policy
considerations,
this
parliament
and
our
stakeholders
must
also
have
the
opportunity
to
scrutinise
and
influence
the
law
as
it
will
imply
in
scotland.
T
This
is
critical
that,
in
our
future
economic
and
trade
relations,
we
have
strong
standards
in
scotland
because
that's
what
we
want
and
it's
important
that
our
parliament
debates
those
issues,
our
parliament
debates
of
detail,
and
while
we
work
with
ministers,
it's
the
parliament
that
needs
to
do
that
work
advised
by
ministers,
but
not
just
without
the
control
of
this
parliament.
I
think
that's
a
really
really
important
principle,
so
I
do
want
to
thank
the
committee
members
for
the
work
they've
done
so
far.
T
I
hope
ministers
will
reflect
on
the
power
of
their
scrutiny
and
work
with
msps
to
deliver
the
change.
We
need
to
see
to
strengthen
this
bill
because
it
couldn't
be
more
important
at
this
time
as
we
look
as
we
look
at
brexit
coming
down
the
track,
this
bill
is
important
for
the
future
of
scotland.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
deputy
officer,
and
remind
members
of
that.
I'm
a
member
of
the
law
society
of
scotland
as
I'll
be
referring
to
their
evidence
to
the
finance
and
constitution
committee.
Now,
as
we've
heard
throughout
this
debate,
what
this
bill
does
is
seek
to
give
scottish
ministers
the
power
to
keep
pace
with
eu
legislation.
C
But
this
will
apply
after
we've
left
the
eu,
so
we're
talking
about
laws
being
made
by
another
supernational
body
of
which
we
are
not
members
and
to
whom
we
have
no
direct
relationship.
So
the
laws
we're
talking
about
are
laws
being
made
by
others
in
relation
to
which
we
have
had
no
input
and
what
this
bill
does.
C
One
example
was
quoted
by
both
dean,
lockhart
and
liz
smith
in
the
debate,
and
that's
the
evidence
from
the
national
farmers
union
of
scotland
who
are
concerned
that
scottish
producers
could
be
put
at
a
competitive
disadvantage
if
they
are
obliged
to
adhere
to
an
eu
regulatory
framework
for
the
environment,
insofar
as
it
relates
to
agricultural
practice
where
producers
elsewhere
in
the
uk
are
not
because
this,
in
their
view,
causes
distortion
within
the
uk
internal
market.
By
far,
of
course,
the
biggest
market
for
scholarly
agricultural
exports
and
the
primary
source
of
the
majority
of
agricultural
inputs.
C
And
that's
not
the
only
thing
wrong
with
the
bill
before
us.
A
whole
host
of
witnesses
to
the
committee,
including
professor
alien
mchard,
professor
michael
keating,
the
faculty
of
advocates,
the
law
society
and
the
nfus
all
express
concerns
about
the
sweeping
powers
being
given
to
scottish
ministers
under
this
bill.
So
laws
made
in
the
eu
laws
in
relation
to
which
we
have
had
no
input
will
be
introduced
to
scotland
by
scottish
ministers
with
very
limited
parliamentary
scrutiny
and
no
scope
for
amendment.
C
There
is,
as
in
a
second
now
there's
one
term
for
this
presiding
officer,
and
that
is
a
power
grab.
That's
the
term.
The
constitution
sector
is
very
familiar
with,
and
it's
a
real
irony
that
is
now
guilty
of
the
very
act.
He
continually
complains
that
the
uk
government
is
doing
the
the
reference
I
made
earlier.
Intervention
to
the
henry
viii
powers
was
a
direct
quote
from
from
professor
tom
mullin,
the
adviser
to
the
finance
and
constitution
committee,
an
eminent
constitutional
lawyer
who
mr
osso
complains.
It's
patronizing
the
chamber
with
his
view.
C
U
L
U
I'm
grateful
to
mr
fraser
for
giving
away
and
I'm
sure
he
wasn't
intending
to
suggest
that
the
the
list
of
of
witnesses
he
cited
were
all
calling
for
this
bill
to
be
abandoned,
because
that
certainly
wasn't
their
position.
But
the
tories
argue
that
this
will
open
up
a
divergence,
a
regular
divergence
with
the
rest
of
the
uk.
That
cannot
be
the
case
if
he
accepts
the
uk's
promise
not
to
diverge
from
or
water
down
eu
standards.
So
so,
which
is
it?
U
C
Very
false
choice
for
mr
harvey:
we
don't
know
what
the
eu
is
going
to
do
in
future.
We
know
that
in
many
areas
uk
regulations
are
actually
stricter
than
eu
laws,
but
we
don't
know
where
the
eu
is
going
to
go
in
future
and
suggest.
We
adopt
a
blanket
approach
to
adopting
every
single
eu
law,
whether
we've
been
consulted
on
it
or
not,
would
put
scottish
farmers
at
a
competitive
disadvantage,
which
is
precisely
why
the
nf
us
are
concerned
about
the
bill
before
us
and,
as
the
committee
heard
time
and
time
again,
presiding
officer.
C
If
the
government
wants
to
bring
in
major
new
policy
changes,
it
has
a
mechanism
to
do
that.
The
tried
and
tested
mechanism
of
primary
legislation,
because
that
allows
for
full
consultation,
discussion
with
stakeholders,
proper
impact
assessments
to
be
done,
and
it
also
allows
for
this
parliament
to
amend
the
legislation
which
does
not
apply
in
the
case
of
the
secondary
legislation
that
this
bill
sets
up
so
presiding
officer.
There
was
an
opportunity
to
approach
this
whole
issue
differently.
C
There
was
an
opportunity
for
the
scottish
government
to
bring
forward
a
piece
of
legislation
that
would
allow
minor
tweaks
to
existing
eu
laws
to
be
done
via
secondary
legislation,
and
I
do
not
think
anyone
would
have
objected
to
a
bill
that
said
that.
But
what
we
have
today
is
quite
different.
It
gives
sweeping
powers
to
scottish
ministers.
It
will
seek
to
align
scottish
law
with
the
future
law
of
the
eu,
a
body
of
which
we
are
not
members
and
will
not
have
a
direct
relationship.
C
It
will
be
damaging
to
scottish
business,
as
dean
locker
has
said,
and
to
vital
sectors
like
agriculture,
and
for
all
these
reasons
it
should
be
rejected
beside
officer
just
to
conclude
what
we
have
before
us
is
bad
law.
There
could
have
been
a
consensus
about
the
way
forward
that
would
have
got
the
support
of
stakeholders,
and
that
was
to
bring
in
a
law
allowing
ministers
to
make
minor
adjustments
to
existing
legislation
by
use
of
regulation.
C
Instead,
what
we
have
is
a
power
grab,
a
power
grab
by
mr
russell,
the
henry
viii
of
this
parliamentary
chamber,
presiding
officer,
a
power
grab
that
will
damage
the
scottish
economy,
a
power
grab
that
disrespects
this
parliament
and
takes
power
away
from
it,
and
one
which
is
fueled
by
this
snp
government's
ideological
obsession
with
the
eu
and
for
all
the
reasons
parliament
should
reject
the
bill
before
us.
Thank
you.
L
B
B
I
think
there
are
areas-
and
this
has
been
my
approach
to
every
bill-
that
I've
ever
brought
to
this
chamber,
that
this
bill
can
be
improved
and
developed,
and
we
will
find
a
way
to
do
so.
I
know
the
points
have
been
made
by
a
variety
of
members
across
the
chamber.
I
think
the
stage
one
report
has
some
very
important
issues
within
it
which
we
can
respond
to
from
all
the
committees,
and
we
will
do
so.
We
won't
agree
on
everything.
One
thing:
that's
common
across
every
bill.
B
I've
ever
been
involved
in
is
that
there's
always
a
debate
and
discussion
about
the
levels
of
subordinate
legislation,
the
matter
which,
actually
to
most
people
outside
this
chamber
seems
entirely
arcane.
But
I
know
it
is
very
important
to
members
of
this
chamber
and
I
think
we're
going
to
have
that
discussion
in
dispute
and
I
think
we
will
find
a
way
through
it.
But
what
I
want
to
reflect
upon
in
the
few
minutes
I
have
available
to
me
is
the
extraordinary
speeches
from
the
conservatives.
B
I
think
sarah
boyak
used
that
word
and
she
is
quite
right
to
use
it.
Let
us
start
by
remembering
why
we
are
here
this
chamber,
passed
by
an
overwhelming
majority,
a
continuity
bill.
It
was
a
bill
that
had
keeping
pace
powers
and
that
bill
was
with
one
very
very
small
exception.
Not
in
this
area
entirely.
Within
the
competence
of
this
parliament
and
the
uk,
conservative
government
changed
the
law
to
outlaw
that
bill.
That
is
what
the
supreme
court
found.
They
changed
the
law
to
outline
that
bill.
B
So
we
are
here
repeating
what
we
have
done,
because
the
uk
conservative
government,
backed
by
a
minority
in
this
chamber,
managed
to
overrule
a
piece
of
legislation
which
had
been
passed
by
an
overwhelming
majority.
So
that
is
why
we
are
here
and
in
addition
we
are
here
mister
I
would
say
to
mr
burnett.
We
are
here
using
the
valuable
time
that
he
would
spend
with
his
constituents
because
of
the
uk
tory
government.
B
So
I
hope
he
will
take
this
issue
up
with
his
colleagues
in
the
uk
tory
party
and
blame
them
for
the
fact
that
we
are
having
to
come
back
here
and
you
should
blame
them
for
something
else
too.
Mr
burnett
has
talked
about
the
waste
of
time
and
money
that
brexit
has
been.
Oh
indeed,
I
agree
with
him.
I
agree
with
him
to
the
tune
of
200
billion
pounds,
which
has
been
the
cost
of
brexit.
B
So
please
don't
remind
me
of
the
waste
and
time
go
and
remind
your
conservative
colleagues.
Now
I
have
to
say
that
I
have
a
life
full
of
enjoyable
instances
and
excitements,
and
I
go
straight
from
this
debate
today
to
a
meeting
of
the
jmc
en,
in
which
I
shall
no
doubt
hear
many
of
the
same
arguments
put
by
the
uk
tory
party,
and
it
will
allow
me
a
further
opportunity
to
wonder,
as
I
have
spent
this
afternoon,
wondering
at
the
current
state
of
the
tory
party.
B
Mr
lockhart's
contribution
reminded
me
of
that
line,
I
think,
from
alice
through
the
looking
glass.
If
I
had
a
world
of
my
own,
everything
would
be
nonsense
because
he
was
living
entirely
in
a
world
of
his
own.
It
is
a
completely
upside
down
world
in
which
he
is
living
in
that
no
thank
you
please.
I
am
standing
the
right
way
up
and
I'm
going
to
continue.
B
I
am
going
to
continue
on
that
matter,
so
allow
me
to
allow
me
to
deconstruct
the
nonsense
that
I
heard
earlier
this
afternoon
and
there
are
three
particular
items
that
I
will
deconstruct
the
first
one
is.
I
have
to
raise
this
point
because
it
is
a
point
for
this
chamber
of
great
significance
twice
now.
Mr
lockhart
in
this
chamber
has
contended
that
the
internal
market
bill
bases
its
powers
upon
the
frameworks
and
is
there
to
support
the
frameworks
like
the
official
report,
will
will
make
it
entirely
clear.
B
It's
happened
twice
now
happened
in
a
previous
debate.
At
that
time
I
asked
mr
lockhart
to
correct
the
official
report
because
it
was
not
true.
The
bill
does
not
refer
to
the
frameworks
in
that
way,
and
he
repeated
it.
This
afternoon
he
doubled
down
on
an
assertion
about
the
internal
markets
bill
which
is
not
true,
and
that
is
a
very
serious
matter,
because
this
bill
is
of
enormous.
No,
I
want
to
finish
this
point
and
I'll
give
way.
This
bill
is
of
enormous
importance.
B
H
Well,
this
is
debate
about
the
eu
continuity
bill.
Can
the
cabinet
secretary
respond
to
comments
made
by
european
union
officials?
That
said
this
legislation
wouldn't
be
effective
and
it
would
be
difficult
to
implement
and
will
not
apply
to
scotland?
That's
not
from
us.
It's
not
from
the
uk
government.
That's
coming
directly
from
the
european
union.
B
Issue
of
the
internal
market
bill,
I
have
given
him
the
opportunity
I've,
given
him
the
opportunity
to
correct
something
that
was
said
twice
in
this
chamber
and
has
not
been
corrected.
Let
the
record
show
that
now
the
second
issue.
The
second
issue
that
we
have
here
is
very
important,
because
the
issue
of
jobs
and
the
retention
of
jobs
and
the
argument
from
the
conservatives
has
been
all
afternoon
that,
in
actual
fact,
high
standards
cost
jobs.
B
B
B
But
then
there
is
a
third
and
very
significant
point,
and
it
is
this:
the
issue
of
being
a
rule
taker.
How
can
any
conservative
with
the
internal
markets
build
in
front
of
them?
The
most
massive
undermining
of
devolution
since
the
start
of
devolution
don't
take
my
word
for
it.
Take
the
word
of
lord
hope.
The
former
deputy
president
of
the
supreme
court,
take
the
word
of
the
anglican
primates
across
these
island.
B
Take
the
words
of
any
of
those
members
of
the
house
of
lords
who
have
spoken
upon
it
in
these
matters,
take
their
word
for
it,
and
yet
apparently,
apparently
that
is
not
true,
because
mr
lockhart
says
it
isn't
true,
a
rule
taker,
a
rule
taker.
That
is
what
no
I'm
sorry.
That
is
what
the
conservative
uk
government
is
seeking
to
make
this
parliament
to
take
away
our
powers
to
do
things,
to
make
it
take
away
our
powers
to
make
rules
and
to
undermine
them.
B
So
I
just
have
to
say
after
this
debate,
the
state
of
the
scottish
conservative
party
is
woeful.
It
is
utterly
woeful,
but
it
is
worse
than
woeful,
because
what
we've
heard
this
afternoon
is
an
attempt
to
defend
the
indefensible.
This
bill
we
are
debating
because
the
previous
bill
was
sabotaged
by
the
uk.
Tory
government,
with
the
consent
of
the
tory
party
in
scotland,
and
now
and
now
black
is
white
and
white
is
black.
I
am
grateful
for
the
members
across
this
chamber
who
have
shown
their
commitment
to
take
this
bill
through.
B
We
will
take
this
bill
through,
but
it
will
be
part
of
a
process
of
saying
to
the
people
of
scotland.
We
have
the
right
in
scotland
to
make
our
own
choices
about
what
we
do
and
we
will
not
be
told
not
to
do
it.
We
will
not
be
cheated
out
of
it
by
people
who
care
nothing
for
this
chamber
and
everything
for
their
colleagues
south
of
the
border.
It
is
a
shameful
position
and
it
will
not.
V
W
Thank
you
for
starting
off,
sir.
Yes,
it
is
a
real
one.
Thanks
for
asking
on
tuesday
this
parliament
very
rightly
debated
the
scottish
government's
plans
for
a
new,
tiered
approach
to
taco
covid,
and
I'm
really
pleased
that
the
motion
received
cross-party
support
for
these
important
measures
and
today,
shortly
before
first
minister's
questions,
the
government
announced
the
list
of
tiers
which
our
own
respective
local
areas
will
fall
into
from
next
week.
W
President
also,
I
do
appreciate
that
you
extended
first
minister's
questions
today
to
accommodate
questions
from
members,
and
I
also
appreciate
that
the
first
minister
expressed
willingness
to
take
as
many
questions
as
she
could,
and
I
thank
her
for
that.
But
by
the
close
of
that
session,
many
members
in
this
chamber,
including
those
from
the
government
ventures,
still
had
important
questions
to
ask
of
the
government
for
the
measures
which
will
be
introduced.
We
now
will
not
get
the
chance
to
ask
the
government
important
things
before
they
take
place
on
monday.
V
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
green,
and
these
matters
are
very
much
a
question
or
procedure
for
the
chair
or
more
likely,
though,
for
the
bureau.
The
point
the
member
makes
is
actually
very
similar
to
the
point
of
order
made
by
joanne
lamont
following
fmqs,
and
what
I
would
suggest
is
that
the
bureau
is
actively
considering
the
process
of
scrutiny
of
the
covered,
related
response
and
the
current
process
is.
V
The
government
proposes
a
program
to
the
bureau,
and
the
bureau
proposes
agrees
that
program
and
proposes
it
to
the
prominent
department,
then
votes
on
the
business
program
and
allocates
time.
So
it's
very
much
in
the
members
hands
about
how
much
time
is
allocated
to
allow
scrutiny
and
questions
for
scrutiny.
This
subject
will
be
on
the
agenda
on
tuesday.
I
would
encourage
the
member.
V
In
fact,
I
encourage
all
members
to
speak
to
their
business
managers
if
they
don't
have
enough
opportunities
to
put
questions
or
would
like
to
the
opportunity,
for
example,
to
attend
committees
or
others
to
improve
the
the
scrutiny
process.
I
hope
that
addresses
the
member's
point.
A
point
of
order.
Neil
findlay.
X
X
New
laws,
new
guidance,
new
regulations
are
brought
in
affecting
hundreds
of
thousands
millions
of
people
who
are
ramming
our
inboxes
every
day,
raising
questions
about
a
whole
range
of
issues
and
we
do
not
have
the
opportunity
to
thoroughly
scrutinize
what
the
government
is
doing
before
before
these
issues
are
implemented.
That
is
the
key
point
that
people
are
raising.
V
I
think
can
thank
mr
findley.
Can
I
thank
mr
findley?
I
I
don't
want
to.
I
don't
want
to
prolong
this.
I
would
just
put
into
mrs
finley
the
this
parliament
and
the
uk
apartment
have
both
passed
laws
which
give
the
government
executive
authority
to
act
urgently
to
bring
in
force
emergency
measures,
which
is
why
the
government
use
made
affirmatives.
V
Thank
you.
So
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
item
of
business,
which
is
consideration
of
motion
double
to
723
on
the
uk.
Oh
sorry,
I
have
to
move
the
financial
resolution
first.
Yes,
it
is.
That
is
yes,
so
it's
a
consideration
of
motion
double
to
723
on
the
uk.
Withdrawal
from
the
european
union
continue
to
use
scotland
bill
financial
resolution.
Could
I
call
ben
mcpherson
to
move
this
motion?
V
Thank
you
very
much.
Indeed,
that's
moved,
so
we
turn
to
the
decision
time
when
we'll
vote
on
these
measures.
The
first
question
is
that
motion
23163
in
the
name
of
michael
russell
on
the
uk
withdrawal
from
the
european
union
continuity,
scotland
bill
be
agreed,
are
well
agreed.
We're
not
agreed
we'll
move
to
a
vote
now.
As
members
know,
we
will
have
to
allow
all
members
to
access
the
voting
platform,
including
those
online,
so
I'll,
suspend
parliament
for
a
few
moments
to
allow
members
to
do
exactly
that.
Department
is.
V
Thank
you,
colleagues.
We
are
now
back
in
session
the
we're
going
to
go
straight
to
the
vote.
The
question
is
that
motion
23163
in
the
name
of
michael
russell
on
the
uk
withdrawal
from
the
european
union
continuity,
scotland
will
be
agreed
and
members
may
cast
their
votes
now.
This
will
be
a
one
minute.
P
J
F
V
L
Y
P
V
Thank
you,
colleagues.
The
result
of
the
vote
on
motion
23163
in
the
name
of
michael
russell
is
yes,
87,
no
27,
there
were
no
abstentions,
and
the
motion
is
therefore
agreed,
and
our
final
question
is
that
motion
double
two
seven,
two
three
in
the
name
of
kate
forbes
on
a
financial
rush
financial
resolution
to
the
uk,
withdrawal
from
the
european
union
continuity
will
be
agreed,
are
well
agreed.