If I perhaps respond to the Member's first comment, which was about this wonderful new descriptive propagandist creation of ministerial titles—Minister for Brexit opportunities—it almost reminds you, doesn't it, of the former Soviet Union Government and 'The Minister for the over-fulfilment of the five-year plan'? [Laughter.] But the point the Member makes is very important, because the document that we have is a very propagandist document; it is full of very loose aspirations. We will obviously want to engage and to explore what they mean, but also we will want to seek guarantees in terms of the constitutional integrity. In the meeting I had on that Saturday I referred to, I raised very specifically not only that the process was unacceptable, calling us in that way, but that was not respectful engagement, but equally so, that we wanted assurances—and I know that others asked for the same thing—in terms of devolution integrity. I'm still not convinced that we have actually been given that, but we will see what actually happens. But the point he does raise, of course, is that if you are to look at EU retained law, if you are to look at it in the round, you have to look at all factors, not just the propagandist ones you want, but the serious implications that there are for trade in terms of some of the things that have either been removed or are proposed to be removed, and the serious implications there might be for the standards that we want to uphold in food, agriculture, environment and so on.