Chamber and committees

I said that that was the final question, but I have a supplementary question on that point. You said that we have gone to a higher standard than the European Union and that there is no divergence, but the UK Government has not done so. One issue that was raised in the evidence that we have received was about how that might affect market access principles in the UK, particularly in relation to Xylella. Can you explain what you think the outcomes of that might be?

Thank you, cabinet secretary.

I open the questioning by highlighting a general theme that has arisen from the submissions and, indeed, from some of the evidence that we have heard this morning. I hope that it will help our understanding of how the Scottish Government is being informed of what is happening in Europe, given that we no longer receive EU directives. What are the capacity issues around being able to take on board and assess what is happening? How might the Scottish Government consider communicating those decision-making processes and that information to the wider Parliament and, indeed, to this committee?

If your question relates to the submissions that we have received and the evidence that we have heard about how the Northern Ireland protocol might affect decision making with regard to these powers, please continue.

Does Mhairi Snowden want to come in on the points that Mr Ruskell raised?

There are no more questions from committee members. I thank Professor Kenneth Armstrong and Mhairi Snowden for attending. It has been a helpful evidence-taking session.

I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the new witnesses to come in.

I welcome that clarification on that particular issue, by way of an example of what might happen. I am not sure that it will be as easy for everything else.

Thank you very much for your attendance, cabinet secretary. I also thank your officials from the Scottish Government.

Mr Cameron will ask the final question.

We were talking a lot about transparency issues. I wonder whether you, too, want to respond to Mr Ruskell.

I have a supplementary question, which is mainly for Alison Douglas. We have talked a lot about new innovations that we might want to introduce post-Brexit under the new common frameworks. You have also mentioned that you are concerned about the erosion of the impact of some of the existing innovations. If we take minimum unit pricing of alcohol as an example, Professor Kenneth Armstrong, who was an adviser to our predecessor committee, highlighted in a briefing paper that a modification of the policy, such as ensuring that the price increases in line with inflation, will not be dealt with under the EU laws as were and the Scottish legislation as was but will now come under the new frameworks. Do you fear that that could open up the possibility of further litigation against the policy, and that we could end up with our current policies on minimum unit pricing and smoking going backwards?

Please talk about that, Mr Thomson, because it is relevant to where we are going with the questions.