I take it, then, that there is agreement that this is really important. The challenge is how we deliver it in practice.

It is interesting for us in Scotland to note Dr Zuleeg’s comments about a parallel discussion happening in the EU with the involvement of the European Parliament. That is something for us to take away in respect of our relations with European parliamentarians, devolved Parliaments across the UK and the UK Parliament. The point, perhaps, is: if you do not ask, you do not get.

I, too, welcome the fact that responses were provided to several of the points that we made in our report, but I was disappointed in the responses in three areas in particular.

The fact that the Scottish Government did not agree with our recommendation that it update its website to give us information about where it intends to align with EU law presents a challenge not just for us as a Parliament, but for stakeholders. They need to understand what changes are likely to be made, particularly in the context of the discussion that we have just had with witnesses about the challenge of tracking the TCA, and how important that is for businesses, the agricultural sector, the fishing industry and environmental lobbyists, given the need to get legislation right.

I was concerned that there was not agreement on flagging what consultations had been carried out, and by the suggestion that that was not proportionate. That cuts across the transparency and accountability element.

I would like us to request further comment from the Government, because it avoided commenting directly on the proposal that we made for a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament on the delivery of effective scrutiny. I am very conscious that a lot of good work has been done by our clerks and Scottish Government officials, but a memorandum of understanding would provide further clarity and would help people to manage timescales—for example, on how keeping pace powers could be effectively monitored for the purposes of transparency.

I note that it was not only our committee that considered the consultation issue to be important; the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee did so, too. That is important for us to note.

That is very helpful. Do any other witnesses want to come in on the issues of accountability and transparency?

I appreciate that, convener; thank you. I have a quick supplementary question for Dr Zuleeg. You talked about the issue of the PPA and how it actually works. This is clearly about the UK and the EU, but what is the diplomacy for other European countries such as Spain and Germany, which have very strong federal systems? How do they ensure that their Governments and federal systems, which have decisions taken at sub-national level, are properly represented in the PPA, so that there is consistency and transparency of the type that we are looking for?

Catherine Barnard has pointed out the challenge of scrutinising hundreds of pieces of legislation. In our report on the UK internal market, we highlighted the need for more scrutiny of legislation by the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Parliaments, and the time issue is also critical. How would you suggest we retrofit the system to include parliamentary accountability and transparency in the processes that come through the TCA?

I very much welcome the debate, and I congratulate Sharon Dowey on securing it.

The fact that the Falklands conflict occurred 40 years ago means that, for many, it is history. However, a survey that was carried out by the charity Help for Heroes reminds us that a quarter of respondents aged between 18 and 24 had never heard of the conflict; nearly one in two of those aged between 18 and 34 did not know in which decade it took place; and 11 per cent thought that it was the UK rather than Argentina that had invaded the Falklands. Therefore, although it is important that the debate should go on the record and that we should express our solidarity with the Falkland Islanders, it is also important to learn lessons for the future.

For me, the conflict was marked by the fact that the UK was led by Margaret Thatcher, with whom I disagreed profoundly on almost every topic that we could mention. However, the earlier exchange between Christine Grahame, Murdo Fraser and Keith Brown shows what is important in the debate, because we are a democracy and we can have such discussions and look back on history without any of us being put at risk. We can also see the importance in a democracy of having peace making and diplomacy as well as armed forces.

It is important for us to celebrate the fact that the people of the Falkland Islands, who have strong links with the UK—and Scotland, in particular—were united in wanting to retain those links and their UK characteristics. They relied on our armed forces to restore their freedom.

An important part of Sharon Dowey’s motion is that we need to express our support for those who lost their lives on both sides of the conflict, whether they were from Argentina or our own armed forces. The people who were injured also had to deal with the aftermath of the conflict. A veteran of the Falkland war said that “not a day goes by” when he does not think about his experience of the conflict and about those who were badly burned when his ship was sunk by Argentine jets 40 years ago. For many people, the aftermath lives on today.

We also need to celebrate our links with the Falkland Islands—Scotland’s links, in particular. I thank Michael Betts, the deputy representative for the Falkland Islands Government, for meeting me last week. It was good to reflect on the similarities between Scotland and the Falkland Islands. As I mentioned, those include the fact that Scotland has islands, a similar topography and weather, lots of wind power, sheep farming and climate-proofed homes. Sheep are important to the Falkland Islands community, and the community is looking to get recognition to brand its wool as Falklands wool, because it is of excellent quality and is organic.

There are also important similarities relating to climate change. The Falkland Islands have high wind and solar power generation, like Scotland, because they do not have an alternative due to their location.

There are links between the Falkland Islands and universities in Scotland and the rest of the UK. There is also a reliance on the state because of the size of the country; people have an expectation of provision from the state. They get support to go on holiday, they have a very good welfare system and they have funded university and living fees to enable them to come to the UK to study—the vast majority of people return home.

It is important that we reflect on the achievements of the Falkland Islanders and on our links to them. We have strong links through the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and our British islands and Mediterranean region branch.

I started by saying that 40 years was a long time ago and that, for many, the conflict is history, but it is important that we continue to try to improve the relationship between the UK and the Falkland Islands’ nearest neighbour, Argentina. It is critical that respect for the Falkland Islanders is at the heart of that relationship and that we continue our support. Wars are expensive, both financially and because they cost lives.

As we look to the future, let us consider this as a unique opportunity to welcome support and recognise the sacrifices that were made 40 years ago as well as to celebrate our cultural links, work together to share our expertise and academic links and continue exploration of best practice between our countries and people. Let us look at how we can continue to strengthen the link between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and the Falkland Islands.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no, but my system did not connect.

I add my thanks to all those who work in our NHS and care workers for their incredible work through the pandemic. The challenge is that their work is still pressured. They are still having to work long hours and we are still dealing with the after-effect of the pandemic as our health system and care sector recover.

I was prompted to speak in the debate by the emails from constituents that I have been receiving regularly. They are getting in touch because they need help in accessing care for either themselves or their relatives, and they cite deeply troubling and frustrating experiences. For example, I have been contacted by relatives of people with dementia, who are very worried about the length of time that it is taking them to get access to care. That means that the person with dementia can be stuck in hospital or be at home without the support that they need, which worries their relatives.

There are people who have been stuck in hospital for a variety of reasons, the key one of which is that there is not care available for them at home, or their home needs to be made physically accessible for them but delays are preventing that from happening. Again, that creates stress not just for the person but for their family. That is not good for people’s health and it has a definite negative impact on our NHS.

If we look at the delayed discharge numbers in NHS Lothian, we still see more than 200 beds per day taken up by people who are ready to leave hospital. That does not mean that they are entirely healthy and well, but they are at the point at which they no longer need hospital care and now need care at home or step-down care.

It is really important that we get an approach that looks at all those things. The problem that I have with the SNP motion is that it does not begin to acknowledge the scale of the crisis faced by the people who are currently getting in touch with us.

The challenge is that the city has an ageing population. People are living much longer, so there is an infrastructure issue in respect of the accessibility of people’s homes in the city and the care that is being provided. That is not just from the pandemic; the delayed discharge statistics go way back.

I am worried that the minister does not acknowledge the scale of the crisis in the city. Nobody should fear growing old, getting ill or becoming vulnerable and not living a full life with dignity and respect, and people’s families should not have to worry about that. I will take up the minister’s offer of a meeting, because people have raised particular issues that the Government could act on now.

A key issue that is raised with us regularly by nurses and carers whom we meet is that, although they have enjoyed the clapping for support through the pandemic, there are real issues to do with finance and salaries. Delivering national terms and conditions and creating career opportunities are absolutely vital if we are to retain people in the care sector and recruit them, and if we are to make such jobs an attractive choice for people. We are in a cost of living crisis, so pay is critical to success. That is why our amendment refers to not just an immediate rise to £12 an hour but the need to go up to £15 an hour. As Paul O’Kane said, an extra 48p an hour does not cut it. The cost of private rent in Edinburgh is £1,000 a month. That is a lot of money for people who are on low incomes. Many contracts are insecure or temporary, and 15 per cent of staff have to work unpaid overtime. That means that people will not see opportunities in the care sector as reliable, long-term career opportunities, and that is one reason why we are experiencing shortages in recruitment.

I have received feedback from families who are deeply unhappy about not being able to earn an income while caring for a relative. It is simply not sustainable for many families to look after a relative full time without limit without an income. Tomorrow, we will have a debate on community wealth building. I ask the minister to reflect, in summing up, that there is a direct read-across to that debate. We could support community and co-operatively owned not-for-profit care companies. That would give people decent employment, let them shape care in their communities, and enable people to work as carers for relatives and reinvest in our communities. Distraught constituents have got in touch with me directly about that.

For too long, we have relied on unpaid carers without giving them proper support and acknowledging the sacrifices that many people make. In a cost of living crisis, the pressure will be ramped up massively if people have to give up work to care for a relative. We have to rethink how we support families.

In his opening comments, Paul O’Kane made points about addressing the funding gap that was identified in the Feeley report, giving people access to social care where they need it, reopening the independent living fund, and looking for funding for respite care to support unpaid carers, as they need to be able to keep caring, as well. We also need to look at reversing the narrowing of eligibility for care packages.

There is a lot that could be done now. It is really worrying that, in a recent survey, 43 per cent of carers said that they did not feel supported to continue caring.

There is the issue of care at home.

Would the Deputy First Minister like to confirm that the Scottish Government knew that there were issues with both bills but did not respect MSPs enough to tell us about them before we voted for those bills in Parliament? The Deputy First Minister says that he is “delighted” that we can now make progress, but is it not the case that we could have progressed both bills, transforming children’s lives and empowering local government, through agreeing to amendments at stage 3 last year had the SNP not preferred a constitutional falling out and delays to both of those pieces of vital legislation?