My question is in a similar vein. Wider transparency is important. The report that is before us talks only about the use of the section 1 powers and not about alignment in the broadest sense, which, as Ms Boyack has just explained, is about not just legislation but the interpretation of law.

I want to move on from that conversation to think about what the different levels could be. You have described some of the challenges that parliamentary committees face with the sift process, but you have also said that consultation on those areas generally takes place with stakeholders. What kind of in-depth information can we get, particularly in areas in which, as you have said, there might be a divergence that is in Scotland’s interests? How can that be flagged up at an appropriate level for the committee and stakeholders? That is not really clear in the report that is before us, and it is clear that decisions have been made where Scotland has diverged from the European Union.

That is useful. I think that the cabinet secretary explained things well earlier when he talked about laws that are effectively redundant now that we are outside the structure of the European Union and those areas in which powers are reserved under the current settlement. However, there are also the conscious decisions to diverge, and transparency in that respect is perhaps missing at the moment.

Perhaps I can give you an example. An assumption has been made that we are in alignment with the EU climate change laws, because we have our own climate change legislation, which was updated quite recently with enhanced targets that actually go beyond EU law. However, I am doing a piece of work with a colleague in the Bundestag on the EU taxonomy, which is effectively part of EU law, with regard to which sectors are deemed to be climate neutral and therefore worthy of investment in the European Union. As I am sure the cabinet secretary is aware, that is a big area of debate not just in Germany but elsewhere in the EU. Are we or are we not aligned with the EU taxonomy on green investment, which is part of EU climate law? Has there been any consideration of that? If so, where did the conversation go? That is one example in which things are not entirely clear.

[Inaudible.]—area of alignment with EU policy, such as climate.

That shows the level of information that it would be useful for wider stakeholders to understand, particularly if we are going to get into a debate about joining the EU. We might like what is in the EU taxonomy and we might like the way that European investment is going, but we might not. That is an example of where that level of information and consideration within the Scottish Government—I hope that there is consideration of that—

I want to ask you not just about alignment with regard to legislation that comes through directives, but about how those laws are interpreted once they are in domestic legislation. For example, with environmental legislation, there are often differing interpretations of the habitats regulations, which then go before the European Commission. There are often petitions and concerns expressed about licensing the killing of certain species and so on. Is that another area in which there could be divergence in interpretation of laws that originally came from Europe but that are now in domestic legislation and are open to a different interpretation?

It is not directly on finance, but I will take the opportunity to ask it. The agreement uses the phrase “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. Obviously, private finance is coming in that will, we hope, eventually lead to a just transition, but a lot of public finance is going on tax subsidies and other forms of direct support for fossil fuels. What are “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”? I am interested in the views of both of our witnesses on where they would draw the line in deciding what is an efficient fossil fuel subsidy and what is an inefficient one?

Malini, your connection dipped out earlier when I asked about the text in the agreement on the need to move away from

“inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”.

Jim answered from his perspective. What are your thoughts on how we move the debate forward on what is an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy and when it is and is not acceptable?

What are your impressions of the launch of the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance?

Actually, if it is okay, perhaps I can wrap up that question with another one. I was asking about the wording

“inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”

and how that is defined. Earlier, Jim Skea talked about the fact that subsidies can be used in a social context or an economic context. What is your perspective on that?

The second question that I would like to ask you directly, if you can still hear me, is about geopolitics in relation to India. After the agreement and the kind of breakdown of process at the last minute, quite quickly we saw India being blamed for watering down the commitment on fossil fuels in the agreement. Do you see an inequality there, given that the states that are perhaps putting pressure on India to reduce coal have had all the benefits of development of oil and gas over the past 200 years and are still developing them? I am interested in your perspective on both those issues, which are really about global equality and where things sit politically.

I found it useful for the regulations to be referred to the committee, because I think that there is a wider issue about the processes for traffic regulation orders being pretty cumbersome and time consuming, particularly for council officers.

I note that reform of this type of order will enhance the ability of members of the public to offer their views on the experimental orders that are being put in place, and that can form part of councils’ decision making on whether they should be taken forward in future. It is a welcome first step in amending these particular orders and making them fit for purpose.