I start by making it absolutely clear that Scottish Labour supports alignment with the European Union, which is why we supported the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. For us, the debate is about transparency and the Parliament’s ability to scrutinise ministers’ decisions and the Scottish Government’s actions.

I have to say that there is a bit of an irony when Donald Cameron suggests that parliamentary transparency is a technical issue, because it is fundamental to how we operate. The cabinet secretary’s reply to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, following its consideration of the statement, did not go far enough, although we acknowledge that he made a couple of commitments to us.

The statement that is being considered does not give Parliament adequate scrutiny of the decisions taken by ministers on where to align with the EU and where not to. It will focus only on the areas where the Scottish Government decides to align with the EU, but members of the Scottish Parliament, parliamentary committees and wider stakeholders must have the ability to scrutinise not only where the Scottish Government decides to align, but where it decides not to align. An up-to-date website would have been a very useful and easily accessible tool for MSPs, businesses, the wider public and environmental campaigners.

Secondly, there is an issue about reporting on consultations. We want clarity, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will give us more of that. We mentioned at the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee that we need a list of relevant consultations and we need to see what everybody says, but we did not get clarity on that.

Thirdly, we do not think that there is a strong enough commitment from the cabinet secretary to secure a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the Parliament on scrutiny of these matters. Simply welcoming our suggestion does not go far enough. There is no milestone for completing the discussions and no clear commitment to definitively have a memorandum of understanding. We need that.

This debate is about transparency. It is vital that we can do our job as democratically elected members. The Scottish Government must be transparent and give us a clear commitment that it will be transparent, not just on EU legislation where it seeks to maintain alignment but where it does not seek alignment, because people might not agree with that judgment and might want the Scottish Government to align.

There is an irony in that the Tory UK Government has been completely inadequate in delivering parliamentary scrutiny on trade deals and other Brexit-related matters, whereas the SNP has stood up for parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that we will get a commitment from the Government to change the statement, because we cannot support it as it currently stands. We will vote against it today, but, if the cabinet secretary takes on our points, we will support a revised statement that enables greater transparency and scrutiny so that we can do our job, make sure that we can see where alignment is needed, take the debate into the Parliament and have proper scrutiny of the cabinet secretary and his colleagues.

Yes, of course, if it is brief.

I will tell Fergus Ewing what that reminds me of: when you are in an arrangement, a coalition or whatever you like to call it, there will always be a tension between the two parties if both parties are doing the job. I have memories, but we will not go there today, because I want to look forward.

A point was made by Beatrice Wishart and Brian Whittle about the importance of people’s health and wellbeing. As we come out of the pandemic, national parks are potentially part of the solution, as all our natural green spaces are.

I welcome Jackie Baillie’s contribution today, as she has been a stalwart campaigner not just for establishing the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park but for the investment to make it a success. When I look back at our first debate, I see that those issues were on the table for that discussion. It was not enough to declare national parks; they had to continue to be supported, which is a message that has come from across the chamber in the debate.

Colin Smyth was right to point out the economic benefits: £1 spent on a national park leads to £10 to £17 in the local economy of a national park. That is hugely important, and we are all missing out because we still have only two national parks.

When the APRS and the Scottish Campaign for National Parks produced “Unfinished Business—A National Parks Strategy for Scotland”, they identified seven potential national parks. That was nearly a decade ago. Things were well summarised in The Scots Magazine in its great park debate. Ben Nevis was one of the “majestic mountains”. Glen Affric was

“Secluded and sylvan—Scotland’s finest glen.”

The Cheviots and the Border hills were a

“Timeless landscape rich in history.”

Galloway was

“Lush and wild—Scotland’s pastoral gem.”

Wester Ross was

“Majesty in stone—wild Scotland epitomised.”

The coastal and marine park was

“The dramatic, magical west coast.”

Harris was

“A world apart—dazzling beaches and amazing rockscapes.”

We are spoiled for choice in Scotland. There are other national parks that we can make in addition to the first two, and it is clear that local communities are organising and running campaigns in the Cheviots, the Borders and Galloway.

Given that we have this debate today, the key issue is what is next. I would like to hear from the minister in her summing-up speech about the number of national parks and the strategy not just to manage people’s expectations but to lift our aspirations. I think that we all expected that, 20 years on, we would have seen more national parks.

As Martin Whitfield highlighted, our amendment says that we regret the lack of progress. We need more ambitious plans, and we also need to ensure that we do not forget our national scenic areas and regional parks, because they are also critical in tackling our climate, nature and biodiversity emergencies.

Much more work needs to be done. We need to add momentum to the work of those who have been relentlessly and persuasively campaigning over the past decade in particular. I hope that the minister will give us more clarity in her summing-up speech.

In her opening speech, Lorna Slater made the case for more national parks, in the plural. She did not restrict herself to one national park. Let us get a strategy that is underpinned by political commitment not just to celebrate our beautiful landscapes but to make them easier to explore.

In some ways, I have an easy job, because I am not asking for a particular national park in a particular area; I want more national parks so that my constituents can explore and go on holiday in Scotland and add to our local environments and our local economies, and so that their children can learn from our beautiful country.

Excellent cases have been made across the chamber. Colin Smyth restricted himself to two national parks. If Rhoda Grant had been here, she would have gone for at least three in her constituency. Across the chamber, members are proud of the areas that they represent.

As we build recovery from Covid and tackle the cost of living crisis and our nature, climate and biodiversity crisis, now is the time for action, a strategy and more national parks, so let us get on with it.

When I asked the First Minister last month about the problems with this year’s census, she said that questions would need to be asked, including about the credibility of the census.

We clearly now need answers about the timing of the census, how it was conducted and resourced, and its accessibility. However, now that we know the response rate, does the First Minister agree with my concerns that people on lower incomes will be doubly hit, given the importance of census data in targeting resources to invest in communities and to tackle inequalities, and given the lower rates of return in disadvantaged communities across Scotland? Also, what action will she take to ensure that people will not miss out?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to support college and university students impacted by the cost of living crisis. (S6O-01169)

To ask the First Minister what her position is on whether Scotland’s census 2022 has been a credible exercise. (S6F-01183)

Earlier this year, the National Union of Students Scotland warned that 54 per cent of students will find coping financially over the summer months difficult and called it “a cliff edge” for students in relation to the cost of living, rent, food, utilities and essential travel.

Twelve months ago, the Scottish Government committed to reviewing support for students over the summer months. When will that review be completed? Will the Scottish Government put in place similar discretionary support to that which was available last summer?

I want to ask about accountability at the parliamentary level with regard to the UK Parliament and the devolved Parliaments across the UK.

Paul Craig’s paper for the European Law Review is strong on the discretionary nature of the Partnership Council, and it also makes the point that it was a very last-minute agreement. Witnesses have been talking about how long the agreement is, but the fact is that it was not effectively scrutinised by UK parliamentarians or legal scrutineers. That is a real issue.

Witnesses have also highlighted the agreement’s thinness. How do we begin to retrofit accountability and parliamentary scrutiny into the processes so that not only we but our stakeholders can find out what is happening? There is also the question of how the treaty links into the issue of where goods are made, which witnesses have also talked about.

Those are just a couple of questions for our witnesses. I invite Professor Christina Eckes to kick off, given that she talked about how the urgency of agreeing the TCA excluded any alternative scenario with regard to how national Parliaments might be involved in and reported to as part of the process, and the lack of transparency in that regard.

That is helpful, but I would point out that in our “UK Internal Market Inquiry” report, we came to the conclusion that, although such scrutiny is difficult, it is actually very important. As a couple of you have illustrated today with regard to business and trade, goods might well start off in one country but the process is completed in another country, and we need clear technical arrangements so that businesses and environmental non-governmental organisations can lobby us as parliamentarians and we can raise issues in which our constituents are interested.

Again, that answer was very useful. Do any of the other witnesses want to comment on the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and how we might deliver the transparency that we need in implementing the TCA?