 Welcome to the 26th meeting of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee in 2022. Our first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. Our members are content to take agenda item 3 in private. Agenda item 2 is to take evidence on the annual report laid in draft by the Scottish ministers in exercise of the power in the UK withdrawal from the EU continuity Scotland Act 2021. We are joined remotely this morning by Angus Robertson MSP, Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, George MacPherson, head of EU policy and alignment at the Scottish Government, Rosemary Greenhill, regulatory team leader, drinking water quality Scottish Government and Lorraine Walconsaw lawyer, Scottish Government legal director and warm welcome to you all and cabinet secretary can invite you to make a brief opening statement with you. I joined you from Scotland house in London where I'm for holding meetings with the UK government so thank you for accommodating me joining you remotely this morning. Today we are focusing on the European Union in particular our report on how the Scottish Government is using the EU continuity act to protect and maintain the high standards that we enjoyed as a member state of the European Union. We are committed to remaining close to the EU and to building the strongest possible relationship between the EU and Scotland and I think is important that we consider it here why that is. Alignment is of course a point of principle and conviction Scotland's attachment to the European Union has been demonstrated at the ballot box time and time again and if the latest polls are to be believed that desire to remain close to Europe is doing nothing other than increasing because the people of Scotland see what is at stake and understand the devastating effect that Brexit and not just the calamitous litany of successive UK governments is having on the country but above all else alignment is about protecting the wellbeing of the people of Scotland and our standards shared with and shaped by the EU are among the most vast world to protect the environment, people's working conditions, the safety and quality of the food that we eat and as we will see the water that we drink. The Scottish Government's policy of maintaining alignment with the EU where we can and it makes sense to do that is protecting those standards. This can happen in a number of ways. The continuity act power we're discussing today is only one such vehicle and only one part of the story. This is done also via other legislative means or by changes to non-legislative guidance, policy and programmes and taken to get difference to the standards enjoyed by people in Scotland. In this regard I'd like to thank the committee for sharing the research carried out by Queen's University in order to establish a potential baseline of EU legislation passed since Scotland was forced to leave the European Union. We'll carefully examine the research produced and the recommendations that are being made but I would note that it is important to remember that Scotland's approach to alignment is to align where possible and where it is within Scotland's interests to do so and this requires careful consideration as to the extent and the method by which Scotland should align in order to achieve the outcomes that we share with the EU. Where that's by legislation, as you know, Parliament has agreed our statement of policy to provide transparency in terms of information, irrelevant policy notes and consultations and I'm grateful that both the civil service and the parliamentary officials are discussing how that can be taken forward. But alignment isn't just about legislation and standards, it's about the vision that we share with the European Union for the continent's future. It's part in the world, tackling the climate emergency, sustainable growth and supporting Ukraine as just some examples. By the outcomes that our interventions support and consideration of alignment and the international dimension is an integral part of our approach to policymaking. This commitment to align is made all the more important by the devastating project that we see emerging from Westminster. We all need to wait for what the retained EU law bill will mean. In its current form, it's less about taking back control from Brussels and more an attempt to dismantle the high standards that Scotland and the UK has enjoyed as a result of our former member trip of the European Union. Can you switch the camera off, please? Cabinet Secretary, I don't think you can hear me. Cabinet Secretary, can I suspend the meeting? Thank you and welcome back to the committee. We are going to try to resume questions to the Cabinet Secretary. If the Cabinet Secretary could repeat the last few minutes of his opening statement, that would be very welcome as we weren't able to hear it. That's very kind, convener. I hope that you can hear me. Now I was beginning to come to the end of my statement, but I'll talk briefly about both the retained EU law bill because of the relevance that has on Scotland remaining aligned with the European Union and briefly touch on a number of report-related issues. If you are still hearing me, I will conclude, convener. The implications of the retained EU law bill may have for our approach to preserve and advance what we have are profound, and it will remain to be seen what impact the retained EU law bill will have on Scotland's ability to act in its own devolved interests. However, the rule bill means divergence and paraphrase Vice President Sefkiewicz's comments last week to the EU-UK parliamentary partnership assembly, where he said, "...divergence will carry even more cost and will further deepen the barriers to trade between the EU and the UK. Divergence means more friction and less trade." It's as simple as that, and again, this is in times of severe economic strains." In taking forward alignment in Scotland and determined that we proceed in a way in which others can understand, so much of this can feel arcane to our fellow citizens. That's why I welcome today's hearing and why our policy statement agreed by Parliament in June last year commits us to going beyond the requirements of the continuity act, providing detail on the impact of our commitment to align in respect of all relevant legislation brought forward. We want to ensure that Parliament and the public understand how and where EU standards are being preserved and advanced in Scotland, and I commend that parliamentary officials are working with my own to ensure that we apply that commitment effectively, because it is by working together well in this way that we will have the best chance of delivering our shared interests and allowing the Scottish Parliament to fulfil the role that it has assigned in the devolution settlement. Very briefly, on the report before you today, the report laid in draft for you to consider covers how the section 1 regulation-making powers have been used in the last reporting period. That's 1 September to 31 August 2022, and, as I've explained, this is a subset of the application of alignment overall. The most important development is that we are now taking forward planned use in respect of world health organisation requirements on the quality of what are intended for human consumption as detailed in the European Union recast drinking water directive. That is a really good example of how we are applying our commitments in terms of alignment. We are able to align with provisions of the recast drinking water directive using the most effective powers available to us in a way that protects and advances standards. That example also demonstrates that there are aspects of EU directives in which we have to carefully consider how and when we implement and the section of the report detailing considered use over the reporting period. In that case, on decarbonisation, it does likewise. The detail of the water quality regulations are, of course, a matter for Michael Matheson's portfolio and the net zero committee. I'm very grateful to be accompanied by civil service colleagues from the environment and the EU secretariat today. We'll do our best to answer your questions on the report and help to consider any written representations that the committee might wish to make. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, and we can hear you so hopefully. That will continue for the rest of the session this morning. We won't have any more disruption. I wonder if I could reflect on your opening statement and your comments on the research that was commissioned by our committee in terms of informing the wider public and ourselves, the Parliament, about some of the decisions and some of the law that has passed in the EU. We also heard evidence that the dashboard from Westminster doesn't seem to cover devolved areas. I was wondering if you agreed that there needed to be more information. I did say that the report was just part of the picture, but how can stakeholders in Civic Scotland examine the decision making that's happening at the moment? Do you agree that it's almost as important to know what's not being taken forward as it is to know what has been taken forward by the Government and whether you would reflect on that? So, convener, there's quite a lot on your question there. Firstly, I would say that we, so firstly I'm going to answer the question in the context of our endeavors to remain aligned prior to the application of the retained EU law bill by the UK Government and rather than conflate the two. In the first instance about how things currently stand, I think that we're beginning to find our way through the process of alignment, realising that we can do that in a number of different ways, not all of which involve legislation. We have a reporting mechanism in place to Parliament with myself and colleagues answering to you and providing background material to illustrate the issue in general and specific terms. The fact that it's a work in progress I think is evidenced by the fact that there are ongoing discussions between Scottish Government and parliamentary officials about how we can improve as we go forward in a fine tuning sense. So, there's that and that I suppose is the formal context for today's evidence session, but we have this massive issue casting a shadow over this process and alignment more generally, which is the retained EU law bill, which is currently going through the Westminster Parliament. Members of the committee understand that what this in effect does is to force parliaments, whether the UK Parliament or the Scottish Parliament in devolved areas, to make a decision about the entirety of European Union law, so not just legislative proposals by the EU that have been made since Brexit. Now we're having to look right back through effectively 47 years of European Union membership and legislation during that time, which is on our statute book, and for us to make decisions about all of those. That takes us into a totally new situation. I agree that both the prior and what is coming situation are related, especially from your prospective convener and colleagues on the committee, who are going to want to make sure that you're able to scrutinise all of that, but the scale of that will not be lost on you because it certainly isn't on me when speaking to the previous minister who was responsible for this, Jacob Rees-Mogg. He couldn't even tell me how many pieces of legislation were in devolved areas. We know that, roughly speaking, previously about totals of EU legislation were about 2,500. The Financial Times has, in the last week or so, published a report suggesting that it may be considerably higher than that, way beyond 3,000 pieces of legislation, but we've had no information from the UK Government and have asked about how many of those are in devolved areas. On the assumption that the bill goes forward and that it is notwithstanding the fact that the Scottish Parliament is being asked to withhold legislative consent, but, as we know, the UK Government has been prepared to override the Sule convention repeatedly. If it were to do that again, if it were not to accept amendments that would carve out Scotland from the process, which would be the easiest way of retaining EU legislation, so our alignment in effect as a status quo position, we will then, as a Government and then we as a Parliament and you as a committee, are going to have to find totally new ways to manage the historic alignment of Scotland legislation and the European Union. This will be without doubt a massive undertaking, because we will need to, firstly, identify which are the active pieces of legislation that we would wish to see retained. We would need to evaluate in which way would we need to act to make sure that they remain on our statute book. Is that something that requires primary legislation, secondary legislation, statutory instruments and the whole kit in caboodle? That is a process that is also being faced by other devolved Governments. I spoke this week with my opposite number in the Welsh Government, McAntony. We were discussing the scale of the challenge and the beginnings of the thinking of how one would manage our way through the process. I shared with the committee that we are at the start of a long, frankly unnecessary road to try and maintain alignment by having to protect the historic legislative framework of our entire European Union membership. It is taking us into altogether new territory. Thank you for that, cabinet secretary. We begin our evidence on retained EU law bill next week as a committee. We will be returning to that. If we can move to questions on the annual report from our committee, I would introduce first Mr Cameron. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I am delighted to hear that you are in London meeting UK Government ministers and officials. On the subject of keeping pace, you spoke at the start about the principle and conviction of staying close to Europe, but you have chosen in the annual report not to align with EU legislation. It appears that although your Government stated that intention is to align with EU law, it is not the policy that you are following. In this instance, in the EU energy performance and buildings directive, that approach is commendable, but it leaves a huge question mark for Scottish businesses, organisations, civic Scotland and uncertainty if they do not know whether the Scottish Government is going to align or not. I would like your response to that point. I would not want the impression to be created that there is not a general position of wishing to remain aligned with the policy and initiatives of the European Union. That is the case. I could draw your attention to a whole series of examples from single-use plastic regulations to food and feed safety, and I could go on. You have chosen to pick up on one particular issue in terms of building regulations. I am right in saying the provision of electric vehicle charging measures. I will signal to other colleagues who are on the line if they want to add anything after what I have to say on the subject. I can briefly address the specific point on the use of electric vehicle infrastructure regulations in the last annual report. The Scottish Government did not consider using the powers for this regulation over the period of the last report. The consideration of using the power was in relation to its potential application during this reporting year. The implications of measures proposed in the EU legislation still need to be carefully considered in terms of the outcomes that they will support. I think that we all understand that the pivot towards electric vehicle is very much an on-going situation. In this specific case, it was important to consider the evidence held in reaching a decision on our approach to EV charging. In this case, aligning with the regulation in question would not support the outcomes that are sought within the transposition timescale, and we may seek to align at a later date, and we are committed to keeping the matter under review. As I have said to the committee a number of times before, we are committed to remaining aligned in the broadest of senses, but there will be specific measures that come forward, which for a number of technical reasons may not need to be introduced in their entirety, or at this particular point in time, because we are not following a blanket alignment policy with 100 per cent transposition of everything, not least because a lot of measures do not impact on Scotland in any way whatsoever. That is my answer to Mr Cameron's question. Are there any colleagues on the call that we would like to add any other technical insight into the particular regulation that Mr Cameron has asked about? Cabinet Secretary, I have got no visual indication of that. The committee would have to put it into the chat. To follow on what the cabinet secretary stated, the important point is that it is not always possible for Scotland to align with the European Union due to the fact that we are now not part of many of the structures and frameworks that were in place when we were a member state, as we are now obviously outside of the European Union. In particular cases, we need to carefully consider how and when we align, and in some cases the process of doing that may not actually result in the outcome that we are seeking to achieve. In this particular case, in terms of EV charging infrastructure, my understanding is that the purpose of the EU regulation was in order to make sure that it was easier to install EV charging infrastructure and make sure that there was availability of EV charging infrastructure for a large part in new-build buildings. In the case of that particular area, I believe that the evidence indicated that there is a significant level of investment taking place in those areas anyway. The regulation itself would not necessarily improve or increase, or the evidence did not show that it would improve or increase access to EV charging points. The decision was made to ensure that we monitor that particular position and then consider whether alignment is something that should happen at a later date. On the wider point, I think that the deputy convener asked about how our business is supposed to know or how people are supposed to know where we are aligning and where we are not. The Scottish Government brings forward legislation, which is one way of aligning, and that will detail where measures have been taken. However, there are other areas, such as policy announcements. It could be agreements with other organisations in order to deliver services. Those would detail alignment in a wider sense. The purpose of that is to provide information to the general public and to Parliament. Those would be the areas in which I would believe that you would want to consider whether the Scottish Government was aligning rather potentially than looking at what the European Union was doing, because action would be required on the part of the Scottish Government to ensure that alignment was taken place. Thank you for both those contributions. Can I move on to the work that the committee has begun in terms of tracking EU legislation? The cabinet secretary mentioned that in his opening. We are about to embark on a very wide administrative task of trying to track EU legislation on behalf of the Parliament, which will involve huge amounts of staff and resources. However, that work cannot exist in a vacuum. It is, of course, a response to the Scottish Government's policy to align. It is not for us as a Parliament to lead this work. We are here to scrutinise the Government. I would like both the cabinet secretary and any officials to give more detail than is present in the annual report about the work that the Scottish Government is doing to analyse EU legislation to track it. As has been mentioned, there are various routes to alignment, not just the power that we are considering today. Cabinet secretary, do you want to start? I will. I draw members' attention for those who were not present to my previous evidence to the committee and reflect on my decade-long membership of the UK scrutiny committee that went through hundreds, if not thousands, of documents a year to satisfy the UK Parliament that European legislative proposals had gone through the scrutiny mechanism. I was reflecting when I gave that evidence on the fact that I thought that it was a profoundly unsatisfactory way of providing Parliamentary oversight in a digital age, given the scale of regulatory oversight that was required. The Scottish Government has taken a position that that bureaucratic approach is not the best way of doing things. Of course, we know that all EU legislation is published on the EU's websites, but we also know that the scope of EU legislation is vast and that much of it is technical and that it is not directly applicable in Scotland. Alignment, as I think everybody knows, is a policy decision for ministers and is not a legislative requirement and a commitment to produce a report by the Scottish Government setting out whether we have aligned or not in each instance where the EU makes legislation was not included in the policy statement presented to an agreed by Parliament. It would be impractical, it would take significant resource, and such detail does not assist ministers in applying the discretionary alignment policy against the Scottish Government's strategic priorities. Having said that, I am very sympathetic to the point that Mr Cameron makes about the challenge that that then provides to the committee in trying to identify particular areas where greater scrutiny by the committee may be wished for, and that is the area where I am very keen that my officials and colleagues from the committee and Parliament side of the aisle are able to progress work to make sure that we can get that balance right, so on the one hand not massively bureaucratic and time consuming, and on the other hand giving enough insight and understanding beyond what is required by the Scottish Government and is being fulfilled by the Scottish Government in reporting to Parliament about the decisions that we are making, and the fact that I am giving evidence yet again on this question is underlining part of the process that we have for going through this. I think that it would be important just to stress again the wider context of this now, given what is heading in our direction in terms of the retained EU legislation challenge that the rule bill presents for us. We will be absolutely frank with the committee that we will need to think very long and hard about how we are able to best understand what does impact in Scotland in terms of historic legislation, and that may inform the on-going process about the continuing alignment process with new EU proposals. If there are specific suggestions about how we can make that as workable as we can make it, I am very open to working with the committee because it is correct to say that it is in all of our interests to be able to do that with maximum transparency and efficiency, and we are going to have to work very hard to try and find the best way of doing that. I would say, incidentally, that it would be a good idea probably to reach out and speak with colleagues in Wales and hopefully when devolve government is re-established in Northern Ireland, that we can share best practice as Governments and also as Parliaments and then with this new added layer of challenge in relation to historic European Union legislation, and not just in terms of newer proposals from EU institutions that we are trying to remain aligned with. Thank you, convener. I was just to add to what the cabinet secretary said. On the subject of transparency, two things to mention. One is, again, that the cabinet secretary's point about alignment being a policy commitment, not a legislative commitment, and the second one being the policy statement that was passed by the Scottish Parliament in June. In this, the committee committed the Scottish Government to providing information alongside relevant legislation that would help to explain exactly what its relevance to EU alignment was. Specifically, we have been looking at the business and regulatory impact assessment, which has now been updated not just in terms of EU alignment but also to consider the impact that the UK Internal Market Act may have and expand on earlier updates that were made in Scotland's international obligations. That is literally at the final stages, I believe, of being released, and that will happen very shortly. In addition to the business and regulatory impact assessment, we committed to providing information and relevant policy notes that accompany legislation. That will set out the relevance to European Union law and how that is relevant to the Scottish Government's commitment to align with the European Union, where possible, or where it is in Scotland's interests to do so and where we have the power to do so. Also to highlight that we are committed to providing a commentary early in the new year around the commission work programme for 2023 and in subsequent years. That will reflect on the high-level plans that the commission has made for the legislative priorities for the year ahead, and it will highlight with the Scottish Government that that particular point expects to take action to align. It can set out where, potentially, we may not be able to align or it may set out where at that particular point we think further consideration is perhaps required. The idea being that the commission work programme commentary will set out an idea about where alignment may take place over the coming year. The information provided alongside legislation will set out clearly exactly where alignment is relevant. In addition to that, that will also be carried forward by the business and regulatory impact assessment that will set out how the policy options are being considered and how alignment is being considered in that particular case. I should also mention that, where that information is being included in those other areas, we would expect that that will also feed through into public consultation as well, as that would also reflect the approach that we take with the business and regulatory impact assessment at the BRIA. I am very conscious of time as we are limited this morning due to the cabinet secretary's commitment. We have every other member of the committee wanting back in. If we could base it on that and not repeat points already made by the cabinet secretary, that would be very helpful. I am glad that the cabinet secretary and his team are able to see the work that we are doing on it. It is very clear that we need as much transparency as possible. The discussion so far has been about where we intend to align or where we intend to align as a Government. Can you also clarify where you do not intend to align? I think that that is as critical to businesses and environmental organisations or people who need to know where EU law will continue to apply, and critically, where you are not convinced that we should retain alignment? I would draw Ms Boyack's attention to the report as published in part to answer that question, because it gives an example of where not. I also drew attention to that in my opening statement. The list of EU legislation that does not apply to Scotland just because of geographical proximity or because it relates to specific regulations for industries or agriculture, for example, that have no direct impact for Scotland whatsoever, is an illustration of why having an exhaustive list of regulations that do not apply is not the effective and efficient way forward for the Government in terms of the transparency process that we are keen to deliver. You just heard from my colleague who outlined to the committee in terms of people wanting an understanding of what regulations actually are as pertain in Scotland. If we take the electronic vehicle example, people know exactly what the regulations are in Scotland. I am not entirely sure how we would be proceeding in a way to satisfy Ms Boyack's concern, but I underline the fact that, if there are better ways in which the process can be explained to the committee and through the committee to Parliament, I am very open to our officials making suggestions about how that might be and to take that on board and introduce them if they are practical and proportionate. Thank you, cabinet secretary. It is the issue about where you have decided not to align. You say that it would be too much work to routinely scrutinise everything, but surely there needs to be a process whereby Parliament can at least ask questions about in which category you have decided to align and why not. You have given us a couple of policy issues in terms of industry or agriculture, but should that be tested and should that be visible so that people can agree or disagree with that decision that the Government is considering to make? Shouldn't we have a clarity of process and timing on this issue? With the greatest respect, the procedure is clear in as much as we are reporting to Parliament, we are reporting as part of our legislative process. I am back in front of the committee and we are engaged in an on-going process if there are specific ways in which we can provide even more increased transparency and satisfy the demands that I appreciate committee members having sat in their position doing exactly the same job in the United Kingdom Parliament. I will definitely reflect on how we ensure that if there are major proposals where they may have a relevance to Scotland and we have decided for whatever reason that might be that legislation is not required to be aligned being an example that that can be shared as well. Maybe that is part of the process that our committee officials and Scottish Government colleagues need to address directly, but I am not aware of anything that has crossed my desk where a decision has been made that one will not seek to align through adopting policy or legislation. That has not been reported, but were that to be the case, I would want to make sure that people are properly informed and I will take that away and I will reflect to make sure that that is in fact what happens, what I believe to be current custom and practice. That would be helpful because in table 1 of the report that we have done it does give a list of key areas, environment protection, animal health, welfare, chemicals, plant health, food standards, police and judicial cooperation. That is just a few of the issues and alignment or not in all of those areas are devolved. I am just thinking about the information the Scottish Government will have held over the last 23 years. It does start off with a database, so I would be very interested in feedback from the cabinet secretary about clarity, timing, for both alignment and non-alignment. Cabinet secretary, I appreciate that we are here to talk about primarily the report, but you did mention in your opening remarks that if Scotland was not carved out of the retained EU law bill, you would need to look at totally new approaches for keeping pace in some areas. I can ask whether there has been any indication whatsoever from the UK Government regarding their intentions and whether it would intend to do any carving at all. If not, what those other options might be that the Scottish Government would have to pursue and what the likely scale of that task would be? I am in a slightly curious position in that I have received assurances from the UK Government that the Sule convention will be respected in relation to retained EU law and the bill that is going through the UK Parliament. If it is the case that the Scottish Parliament does not give legislative consent, you would imagine that in normal circumstances that would mean that the bill would not proceed as currently drafted. You would imagine then that if that commitment is taking at face value that the UK Government would be prepared to amend itself or accept amendments that have already been tabled in the House of Commons this week. I have not yet had an indication whether the UK Government is actually prepared to do that, because, as committee members can appreciate, we could save ourselves a lot of work in Scotland given that it is the position to try and remain aligned. That means trying to protect the legislative framework that we have inherited as a past member state of the European Union. If the UK Government was serious about working collegially so that we can deliver on our respective mandates and priorities, it would be the best solution that, by framing UK legislation to reflect that. I am still working towards trying to make that happen. We will have to wait and see what is still a relatively new Prime Minister and other ministerial colleagues whether they take a different view to their predecessors. We do not know the answer to that yet, Dr Allan. In the meantime, I and my Welsh colleague have—and that was the purpose of our discussion this week—tried to renew our efforts to help the UK Government to understand that we do not want to see them continue as they have planned to. I very much hope that the new Prime Minister and colleagues will listen to and respect that. I am notwithstanding that they will live up to a promise of respecting the Soul Convention in specific respect of the legislation. Having said all of that, given the experience of Soul being breached seven or eight times and the UK Government carrying on regardless of what the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government has said in past instances, we are having to work on the basis that the UK Government might plough on regardless. If they plough on regardless, we have a very significant challenge, not least because that will impact right across Government. If we think about all the areas that the Scottish Government has responsibility for, a significant part of which, if not a majority of areas of Government responsibility had a European dimension to it or a European legislative dimension to it, the UK Government, as I have already said, is not in a position to provide or is not prepared to or has not included in it, certainly in its tracker, that it has established to point out where the devolved areas are impacted. We are going to have to go through that phase, then we are going to have to go through the phase of working out of how we can retain that legislation on our statute book, and then we are going to have to work out how parliamentary time will be used in all of that. We are very much at the beginnings of that process, and no doubt, convener, you will have me back soon to talk about this process. I heard what you had to say about taking evidence as a committee, and I will be happy to come back. It is a very fast-moving situation, convener, and there are very significant resource implications for ourselves, for our Welsh colleagues. That resource implication is about having the expertise and the capacity to go through 47 years of European Union legislation, and then the resource implications in terms of parliamentary time in the Government's existing legislative programme. We are facing a very big challenge as the answer to Dr Allan's question. In relation to the public consultation on the annual report, presumably, if people had concerns about the decision that was made about EVs or anything else that is in the detail of the report, they can make submissions to that consultation. Is that right? Are you looking for active engagement on the decisions that the Government has made through the consultation, or has it got a different focus? What happens to the responses that come in? Does that get passed to the relevant cabinet secretary, or what is the process here for stakeholders? The first thing to say is that I very much hope that stakeholders are engaged on an on-going basis with the process of alignment and remaining aligned with the European Union. I very much welcome stakeholders reflecting on decisions that have been made because it is alive and on-going process, rather than being an event. It is an iterative approach as well. I very much welcome stakeholders becoming part of that process. Nothing has been flagged to me in relation to the process thus far from stakeholders saying that there was too much of something or too little of something or making specific suggestions about different ways of doing things, but were that to be the case, I have no doubt that it would be influencing the thinking of civil service colleagues. If anything was of significance and proportionate commensure with my responsibilities, it would be flagged to myself that I would be looking very closely at that. Through you, it is an opportunity to say to others—stakeholders—who follow those issues. If there are things that they want to reflect on that form part of the report or related issues to realignment more generally, I would very much welcome people's input. Obviously, the bigger question here is the retained EU law bill and how that stakeholder engagement can realistically happen, given the immense scope and nature of that work that will potentially have to take place in the next 12 months. Do you have further thoughts on how you can engage stakeholders in thematic areas as we potentially approach that cliff edge? Obviously, in Europe, this is happening the whole time and there is on-going stakeholder engagement, but how do you reach out to groups and stakeholders at this point around the totality of that EU law? I think that most committee members would probably agree with me when I say that sometimes dealing with issues like this can seem a bit dry and distant and not have a lot of impact on us, notwithstanding the fact that we are beginning to look at regulations and the impact on the likes of drinking water. That impacts on all of us, but there is a world of difference between the process of understanding specific and on-going new proposals emanating from within the European Union and a process that could potentially see the cliff edge, which is political language for saying the end-of legislation that has been a part of the European Union membership over the past 47 years. It is of a qualitative magnitude, a scale so much bigger than trying to deal with the month-to-month current proposals coming out of EU institutions. Perhaps through you, convener and the committee, to anybody and everybody who knows and understands the importance of European Union legislation and in effect the high standards and safeguards that it has provided us all, that we really need to wake up and smell the coffee about what is coming towards us in terms of this proposal from the UK Government. We are going to have to think very clearly about how we marshal the needs, interests, concerns and expectations of citizens, of stakeholders to make sure that as we go through this process that we are able to protect everything that we would wish to protect. That would certainly be the ambition of the Scottish Government. I imagine that that would be the case for committee members, too. On one final question, you referenced Dr Whitton's excellent report that was done for the committee. One of the issues that she raises is the potential for passive divergence, particularly when it comes to tertiary law, the implementing European Union law. I wonder whether you have a commitment to that tertiary law or not. The way things currently operate is that there is a central team in the Scottish Government's Department of External Affairs, which works closely with Scotland House in Brussels and Scottish Government lawyers in supporting policy directorates. To consider the Government's policy to maintain advanced EU standards where appropriate. This team supports this work as part of DEXA's on-going business. That is to help to enable policy areas to understand the international context of their work. That team helps to ensure that policy areas consider where alignment may be possible, how they can support ministerial decision making and considering alignment alongside the range of information and other priorities that the Government must consider in reaching policy decisions. My view is that that has to be across the piece of proposals that are emanating from European Union institutions. If there are particular aspects of European legislation, regulations and directives—I think that everybody in the committee appreciates the difference between those three types of proposals that emanate from the European Union—we have to make sure that we are capturing those across the piece. I am very interested by the professors highlighting that issue and we want to ensure that we are able to ensure that we have an understanding across the full range of European Union proposals to make sure that there is no passive drift. I am not paraphrasing exactly what she had to say, but there is a sort of unconscious drift in terms of alignment. Again, that is an area where if there is any particular thinking on the committee about the risks of that and how that can be ameliorated, I would be very happy to hear those. I am sure that we will come back to that when we receive the Government's response to that piece of work. I am back to you, convener, just now. I have two members coming in and a possible supplementary as well, so we could be succinct if possible. That would be very helpful, Mr Golden. Thank you, convener. Obviously today's sessions around the continuity act draft annual report, we have clearly covered a lot of retained EU law, so I think that the cabinet secretary may have spared himself another appearance on that particular subject. Back to this session's focus, there is a lack of clarity on Scottish ministers' decision-making process around alignment. I wonder if you think that the current process around alignment is a transparent one. I do not want to be cheeky in just saying yes, but my answer is yes. I would stress to Mr Golden that if there are areas in which more transparency, more understanding about the decision-making process is wished for by the committee, as I have said a number of times, I am actively and prepared to consider those and hope that those are the matters that have been discussed between our officials. In the short answer to Mr Golden's question, I know that you have asked for brevity, convener. My answer is yes. I do think that we have a system that is working and that we are finding our best ways through that in being transparent. However, if there are specific ways in which that can be improved, I am open to that as well. It would be helpful to understand the process around Scottish ministers monitoring new EU legislation. We covered this earlier for possible alignment and how decisions about that alignment are made. I wonder how you could perhaps publish that to make it more transparent. I could reread what I just said in a previous answer on relation to how the Scottish Government manages the alignment process in terms of the central dexateen, Scotland House colleagues in Brussels and then Scottish Government lawyers as being the three key groups in terms of, if you want to call it, a triage process of understanding what is coming towards us. That then goes into the civil service system and is then considered within ministerial decision making. That is the process in which it happens. I am answerable to Parliament both in terms of the committee and in terms of answering questions to members in the chamber. If people are wanting to ask questions about how decisions have been made or which decisions are being made, in addition to the broad spectrum of ways in which I and my civil service colleagues have answered to the committee already, I am happy to consider that. If Mr Golden has any specific examples that he would wish more information about, how would we be happy to provide them? Do you have any flexibility on when you can stay with us? I do not have absolutely no flexibility. I am literally needing to go straight into my next event in the next door room at Scotland House. That is helpful. We still have one member, a very quick question from Jenny Minto. I will be brief. I think that the responses to our questions just highlight how inextricably linked everything around Europe is and what happens in Westminster severely impacts on what goes on in Scotland. I was interested to hear both you and George Macpherson comment on the fact that the continuity act is not the only way that we in Scotland are maintaining our links with European law. I would be interested if you could give a couple of examples so that the normal person can put that into perspective. I would be happy to do it very briefly. If I can think of some of the areas where alignment has played a factor in thinking, I think that the very concrete recent example has related to the single use of plastic regulations. We are trying to be more environmentally responsible, are not we? We are trying to make sure that we are not unnecessarily polluting the environment, so stopping producing things made out of plastic and then literally throwing them away after we have used them, whether that is cutlery or plates or whatever else is probably the most tangible recent example of an area where we have sought to remain aligned with the European Union, where the first part of the United Kingdom to have done that. We have had to do that while using new mechanisms that have been introduced for a kind of post-Brexit UK, so the UK internal market act and what are known as common frameworks, which we have discussed before the committee as well, playing a role in considerations around that. That would be a very current example of something where we are trying to do our best to maintain the highest standards and the highest standards that we know are the EU standards, so we are doing that. The rest of the UK has not done it yet. That is for them to decide about how they want to proceed, but we want to make sure that we are living up to the highest standards that we can, so that is where we are trying to remain aligned with EU policy and that we have done just that. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We are very conscious of your time. Thank you for attending this morning with your officials. We may well have a couple of follow-up questions that we are not able to get to today, but the committee will decide that in private session. Thank you for your attention and we now move into private session.