 That concludes the debate on Scotland's national parks. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 4702, in the name of Donald Cameron, on statement of policy. I call on Donald Cameron to speak to and move the motion. Can I formally move the motion in my name? That motion is that the Parliament resolves the statement laid by ministers under section 71 of the UK withdrawal from the European Union continuity. Scotland Act 2021 should not be approved. The opposition of these benches to the statement laid by ministers is based on two points, a broad general one and secondly some more technical arguments about government transparency before Parliament. In relation to the first broader point, these benches firmly disagree with the stated policy of aligning with EU law. The ramifications of Brexit have divided opinions sharply in Scotland and the wider UK, but the plain fact is that the UK has left the European Union and has indeed now agreed a trade agreement with the EU. However much the SNP resent this, the fact remains that we are outside the decision making processes of the EU. We have no democratic input into the EU's institutions and we have very little, if any, influence on the legislative choices being made by the EU. And yet the SNP insists on the power to keep pace with and align with EU law. This is of course predicated on their desire to break up the UK and rejoin the EU at the earliest opportunity. Further it is very notable that not once has the Scottish government used the keeping pace power according to the report dated 10 May 2022, not once. Despite the warnings of the cabinet secretary's predecessor in the last session of Parliament who kept saying that the keeping pace powers were crucial and necessary they have not been used at all. Perhaps more strikingly there are no plans to use them in the future. The Scottish government's report says so in black and white. Given that background we are entitled to ask why not and more generally what is the point of continuing alignment with EU law. So for these very broad reasons we ask Parliament to support my motion today. The second limb of our opposition is more technical but equally important and picks up on some of the points made by the constitution committee in its letter to the cabinet secretary dated 26 May this year in relation to transparency to Parliament around the alignment process. The committee's view was and I quote that we do not have that transparency at the moment. In particular these benches are concerned that the revised statement of policy does not make it clear how the government will make decisions about which EU laws to align with or not. We are concerned there is no commitment to set out which EU laws the Scottish government has decided not to align with. Lastly we are worried that the Government's decision not to provide details of consultations which include consideration of whether to align or not is disproportionate and contrary to the transparency that Parliament deserves. For all those reasons I ask Parliament to support my motion tonight. I want to start by making it absolutely clear that Scottish Labour supports alignment within the European Union which is why we supported the continuity act. For us this debate is about transparency and the ability of this Parliament to scrutinise the decisions of ministers and the action to the Scottish government. I have to say that there is a bit of an irony when Donald Cameron suggests that parliamentary transparency is a technical issue. It is fundamental to how we operate. The cabinet secretary's reply to the key act committee following its consideration of the statement that we are looking at today is that we are looking at how we are going to make decisions about which EU laws to align with. The cabinet secretary's reply to the key act committee following its consideration of the statement that we are looking at today in our view does not go far enough although we did acknowledge that he made a couple of commitments to us. The statement being proposed today does not give us adequate scrutiny on the decisions taken by ministers on where to align with the EU and where not. It will only focus on the areas where the Scottish Government decides to align with the EU. However, MSPs, parliamentary committees and wider stakeholders must have the ability to scrutinise not just where the Scottish Government decides to align but also 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 the issue of reporting on consultations and we want clarity. I hope that the cabinet secretary will give us more clarity this afternoon. We mentioned this issue, the rural affairs, islands and natural environment committee, that we need a list of relevant consultations and we need to see what everybody says. We did not get clarity on that. Thirdly, we do not think that there is a strong enough commitment on the cabinet secretary on securing 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 these discussions and no clear commitment to definitively have a memorandum of understanding. We need that. This debate is about transparency and it is vital that we can do our job as democratic 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 also where it does not, because people might not disagree with that judgment and they might want the Scottish Government to align. There is an irony here again in that the Tory UK Government has been completely inadequate in delivering parliamentary scrutiny on trade deals and other Brexit related matters where the SNP has stood up for parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that we will get a commitment today to change this statement because we cannot support it as it is currently proposed. We will vote against it today but if the cabinet secretary takes on our points we would support a revised statement that enables greater transparency and scrutiny. We can do our job so that we can make sure that we can see where alignment is needed and we can take this debate into the Parliament and have proper scrutiny of the cabinet secretary and his colleagues. The continuity act was brought forward in response to Brexit to ensure that Scottish ministers are able to protect the world-class standards that Scotland has enjoyed as a member of the European Union. It bears underscoring yet again that Scotland was removed from the European Union against its will. As we see on a daily basis there are no benefits of Brexit. The Scottish Government is clear that we must remain close to the EU and continue to protect the high standards that benefit our country. The people of Scotland have spoken in a referendum and voted overwhelmingly for pro-EU parties in last year's election. Their will is clear. That is why we will continue to align with the European Union where it is possible for Scotland to do so under the devolution settlement. We won't stand by while the UK Government is intent on a race to the bottom. The policy statement we are considering today is largely about the how. Our intention is to align where possible by subject-specific powers or primary legislation where necessary. For example, we use regulations under powers in the environmental protection act to ban single-use plastics in June, a move proposed and scrutinised by this Parliament as you would expect. Where powers are not available or would not allow us to align effectively, we will consider the use of the continuity act power. The transparency of decision making by Scottish ministers is of the utmost importance. We will report annually where the continuity act power has been used, where use has been considered and where use is planned. Our policy statement reflects this, as well as setting out how we will meet other considerations required by the act. How we will decide on the power's use is described, reaffirming our commitment to engage with relevant stakeholders just as we do with other legislation. We take transparency very seriously and our approach goes further than required for other legislation as we will lay statements specific to the measuring question so Parliament can scrutinise exactly why we believe we need to use the power. Following representations from the constitution and rain committees, we have been happy to offer additional information to support transparency. We will provide an annual forward look that will reflect on the European Commission's legislative programme, setting out where the Scottish Government expects to prioritise alignment and where that might not be possible. We have offered to provide information appended to all relevant legislative policy notes and consultations. This goes beyond the requirements of the continuity act. When the information required for other legislation, this will allow Parliament to fulfil its duty of meaningful effective scrutiny of the executive. The Opposition motion is simply an attempt to distract from their party's calamitous Brexit and on-going efforts to undermine Scotland's retained EU law and the devolution settlement. Our commitment to Europe remains steadfast, as is our commitment to transparency to this Parliament. I would advise the Opposition to reflect on that in considering today's motion. Yesterday, the Scottish Conservatives requested that this Thursday's census statement be extended to one hour due to the vital importance of the subject and the extraordinary interest from members to ask questions on the census and its shambolic handling. It is worth bearing in mind that, in a 30-minute statement, we would have only 20 minutes to ask the cabinet secretary questions. Later that day, the minister for parliamentary business appeared to agree with our request when he shared with the bureau his Government's programme for the next few weeks, including a one-hour slot for the statement. Finally, I thought that the Scottish Government is moving towards welcoming transparency and scrutiny. More full me, Presiding Officer. It turns out that the one-hour slot was just in fact a typo from Mr Adam, and he does intend to keep the statement to only 30 minutes. There is no escaping the fact that the political decisions of the Scottish Government on the handling of the census could have far-reaching, damaging consequences for Scotland. My amendment would extend the day's business, allowing the statement to run for one hour to accommodate as many members of the Scottish Parliament who wish to ask questions on this very serious issue. I genuinely hope that the SNP members will support my amendment. If not, I hope that Mr Adam will at the very least apologise to members of my party and possibly others who were informed that they might have an opportunity to ask questions on behalf of their constituents but who may not now be afforded the chance to do so. Therefore, Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in my name. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the parliamentary bureau. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Meanwhile, back in the real world, earlier today we discussed the statement at the bureau, and I stand by the discussion that we had then, Presiding Officer. Once again, I move business as agreed at today's bureau. The question is that amendment 4833.1, in the name of Stephen Kerr, which seeks to amend motion 4833, in the name of George Adam, on changes to the business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.