Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023

Official Report 924KB pdf

---

Europe Day 2023 and Alignment with European Union Laws

The next item of business is a statement by Angus Robertson on Europe day 2023 and the Scottish Government’s commitment to remain aligned with European Union laws. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

14:40  

I begin by wishing you, Presiding Officer, and everybody else a very happy Europe day. I am delighted that we are joined by a number of consuls general from European Union member states.

Europe day is a day that celebrates peace and unity in Europe. It marks the day in 1950 when Robert Schuman presented his proposal for placing French and West German coal and steel production under a single authority. That, of course, set our European neighbours and us on a path to peace and co-operation, and it led to the creation of what became the European Union. Events over the past 15 months, including Russia’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, have reminded us again why that peace and that co-operation are so precious.

Today, I wish to make a statement on why and how the Scottish Government is endeavouring to remain as close to the European Union as possible and how we will ensure that the Parliament can properly scrutinise that endeavour. In doing so, I hope that it will become clear why it is so important for Scotland to escape the damage of Brexit and to regain the rights and responsibilities of full independent European Union membership.

The first reason relates to democracy. People in Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union; there were majorities for remain in every local authority area in the country. When Boris Johnson set out his so-called oven-ready Brexit deal to people in Scotland, the people of this country massively rejected it. However, despite that clear democratic expression, Brexit—Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit—has been imposed on us.

Sadly, the Labour Party now, for what can only be misguided electoral reasons, supports both Brexit and the hard Tory Brexit that has taken Scotland out of the single market—a market that is, by population, seven times the size of the United Kingdom—and the customs union. On this generational democratic disaster for Scotland, a conspiracy of silence exists between Labour and the Tories. That silence signifies broad agreement on Brexit policy between the Westminster parties.

That brings me to the second reason why alignment with the European Union, where possible and appropriate under the current constitutional arrangements, is so important, and why EU membership should be our goal. That reason relates to the damage that the Westminster-agreed hard Brexit is doing to Scotland.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, compared with EU membership, Brexit will, in the long run, reduce the UK’s national output and productivity by 4 per cent. The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:

“What does that mean? Well in the long run we will ... be about that much worse off on average, so people on average sorts of earnings might be £1,000 to £1,500 worse off (before tax) than they otherwise would have been. Of course it also means less money for public services like health and education.”

Brexit has added to the cost of living crisis by pushing up food prices. It has reduced opportunities for young people, with the loss of freedom of movement and the Erasmus exchange programme. It has meant broken promises to our fishing communities, with fewer fishing opportunities for some key stocks than there were under the common fisheries policy. It has hurt our creative sector and our touring musicians. The Brexit damage goes on and on, which makes the Labour-Tory conspiracy of silence on Brexit ever more baffling.

However, the EU is not just about tangible benefits, important though those are; it is a values-based project. The core values of the EU—human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights—are also Scotland’s values, so the third reason for an alignment policy is that we want to remain close to, and be part of, a European Union of shared values.

The fourth reason why we want to remain aligned with Europe is that we recognise that the global challenges facing Scotland today—from climate change, to cost of living and energy costs, to delivering a fairer society—only confirm the need for ever more international co-operation and engagement, not less.

For those reasons, the Scottish Government policy is to continue to align with the EU where we can. However, in pursuing that alignment policy, I acknowledge the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s concerns regarding scope, engagement and transparency, and I understand the Parliament’s desire for greater information to support scrutiny of our approach.

This week, I wrote to the convener of that committee acknowledging those concerns and reaffirming our commitment that we will provide significantly more information on how the policy is being pursued. We will closely monitor the European Commission’s proposals and consider where we can align in a meaningful manner with policy that will protect standards and our people’s wellbeing.

The immediate benefit of that is self-evident. Last year, we brought forward our first legislation under the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 to ensure that Scotland continued to align with the best international standards in terms of the water that we drink. In 2022, we brought into force regulations to ban certain single-use plastics, in support of our commitment to a circular economy. Those are important powers that we will rely on more in the future.

However, alignment is not just about regulations, laws and standards; it is about much more than that. The EU’s priorities map across our ambitions and plans, as set out in the national performance framework and the First Minister’s vision and priorities for Scotland, which were published last month. In particular, the Commission’s commitment to accelerate the green transition and its approach to a digital economy closely align with Scotland’s ambitions for a fair and just transition to a digital and net zero wellbeing economy and society.

Our hydrogen action plan, our draft energy strategy and the just transition plan all propose actions to deliver a flourishing net zero energy system that supplies affordable, resilient and clean energy to Scotland’s workers, householders, communities and businesses. Hydrogen that is produced in Scotland could play a significant role in supporting EU plans to scale up that energy source. We will press for co-operation with the European Commission to facilitate the smooth international trade of hydrogen and renewable energy sources. That is alignment in action. Unfortunately, by contrast, the hard Brexit that the UK Government pursued has uncoupled energy co-operation.

The UK’s pursuit of post-Brexit legislation, often in the absence of consent from the Scottish Parliament, has undoubtedly created significant challenges for both the Scottish Government and the Parliament, with the responsibilities and competences of each being either ignored or overridden. Let me put it on record that I am committed to working closely with the Parliament, and specifically the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, to respond to those challenges robustly and ensure that Parliament can fulfil its role of holding Government to account.

Westminster’s deliberate attempts to ignore the devolution settlement, as it ushers in its divergent and deregulatory agenda, is at odds with the high standards that Scotland shares with the EU, and that should be a concern for us all in this Parliament. That situation inevitably means that the focus of the Scottish Government’s alignment policy efforts in the months ahead will be primarily on preventing important standards and protections from being undermined by the loss of retained EU law provisions. Every such law that is safeguarded is an example of alignment in practice.

The difficult reality is that Scotland, while it is part of a UK that is not part of the EU, cannot ensure alignment with the EU in all cases. We must align where we can and where that alignment is meaningful but, first and foremost, we must protect Scottish legislation from the UK Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which is creating significant uncertainties for our country during an on-going economic crisis.

We will always seek to work constructively with the UK Government, because we value co-operation as a matter of principle. However, where the UK Government seeks to undermine the basis of co-operation—such as agreed rules on exemptions to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—we will challenge that robustly.

The Scottish Government will keep fighting for the values and standards that we hold dear and for a Europe that is green and prosperous as well as united and diverse—a Europe that, above all, stands for co-operation and peace. That is what Robert Schuman stood for, what Europe day represents and what the EU project is. It is an ideal that Scotland continues to support and believe in, and one to which we will return.

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question would press their request-to-speak button now.

I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. We whole-heartedly support Europe day 2023. It is a day to celebrate peace and unity throughout Europe. Indeed, we are united in our support for Ukraine as the Russian invasion continues into its second year. Europe day was first celebrated by the Council of Europe, and the United Kingdom is a founding member of the council and remains a member.

In his statement, the cabinet secretary set out the Government’s commitment to remain aligned with EU laws. However, the reality of how that policy has been implemented tells its own story. After all the fire and brimstone that we heard in the chamber from Mike Russell, his predecessor, during the passage of the 2021 act, how many times has the Scottish Government used the formal keeping-pace power since 2021? It is just once. That is a perfect example of the Scottish National Party virtue signalling over proper policy making.

In truth, the Scottish Government has chosen not to align with the EU on a wide variety of issues. Why on earth does the Government keep up the façade of alignment? Will the cabinet secretary now listen to the warnings of many people in rural Scotland who have said that full alignment with the EU would be devastating? Will the Government commit to adopting only laws that suit Scotland best while remaining aligned with our largest trading partner, the rest of the UK?

I will start off with words of agreement. It is great to hear from the Conservative members that they also recognise that today is Europe day and that they welcome it and think that it is worthy of being marked.

It is also helpful to hear the important genesis of European institutions emanating from the Council of Europe and, for the non-initiates—I know that, being a lawyer to trade, the honourable and learned member opposite, understands this—the human rights aspect that the Council of Europe has brought to standards across our continent, not just within the European Union. That underlines how bad it would be were there to be any stepping back from the shared human rights standards across our continent. I think that the only countries that have resiled from European standards in the Council of Europe are the Russian Federation and Belarus, and we certainly should not follow that example.

Donald Cameron chose to concentrate on one way by which one can remain aligned with European legislation. Of course, there are a number of different ways of doing that. It is important that our committees should be able to best understand why we should use or not use a certain piece of legislation—why we should approach the matter in different ways.

That is why the Scottish Government is updating its approach, particularly in the context of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. It is absolutely right for parliamentarians across the parties to have the best information to hand to hold Government to account on these matters. Donald Cameron knows that I spent 10 years on the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons, so the matter lies close to my heart. I have given the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee the undertaking that I want that engagement to be as meaningful and workable as possible. I give that commitment again in the chamber.

I am not entirely sure whether he meant to say this, but I very much welcome Donald Cameron saying that he welcomes the Scottish Government’s bespoke approach. I do too.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. Scottish Labour also welcomes Europe day 2023. We agree that the Tories have made a mess of Brexit and I urge Conservative MSPs to lobby their Government not to make matters worse with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.

As has been said, the SNP has a commitment to align with EU law but, as in so many other areas, its rhetoric does not match its record. Mr Robertson has also not always supported EU treaties either. In fact, he previously described the Lisbon treaty as “completely and utterly unacceptable”. What are the Government’s criteria for aligning or not with EU law now? How widely will it consult on its approach?

The cabinet secretary also mentioned Erasmus, but why are Scottish students still waiting for a replacement programme when Labour has created one in Wales?

Perhaps Angus Robertson should have indulged his own conspiracy of silence: the Lisbon treaty, 2014 and the Erasmus failure. The Tories have made a mess and only a UK Labour Government can clean it up. Perhaps it is time for the SNP to accept its irrelevance and get out of the way.

I begin by welcoming Neil Bibby to his new position. I look forward to working with him constructively where we can. It is a shame that we do not have a lot of clarity from his question about Scottish Labour’s position on European alignment.

I grew up with a Scottish Labour Party that included names such as Bruce Millan, a European commissioner, David Martin, a vice-president of the European Parliament and Janey Buchan, a long-standing MEP in the European Parliament. It is not the same party that we are hearing today—indeed, it is not the same party questioning what the Scottish Government is doing. There was no welcome for the target of remaining aligned with the European Union and there was the chimera—the imaginary situation—that the Labour Party is going to “clear up” the Tories’ Brexit mess by sticking with the same policy. It is inconceivable that there will be any difference whatsoever.

Notwithstanding the fact that Anas Sarwar has described Brexit as an “economic disaster”, the Labour Party is going to continue with it. A party that is led by Keir Starmer is saying that it is not going to reconsider the UK’s position within the European Union, not going to reconsider the United Kingdom’s position in the single market and not going to reconsider the disaster of the ending of free movement of people. Labour really must do much better. It should embrace the policies and approach of the past, not ape the Tories, as it has sadly done again today.

A recent British Council report “Soft Power Today” found that countries that invest in overseas cultural institutes see significant returns. Meanwhile, its report “Gauging International Perceptions: Scotland and Soft Power” found that

“Scottish soft power is in a competitive position”

but noted that

“the challenges ... of Brexit will require Scotland to have a clearly articulated narrative on its place in the world”.

A recent committee report from the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee praised the work of the international offices and, indeed, the British Council said that it would welcome more of them to spread Scotland’s presence throughout Europe and the world. On this Europe day, does the cabinet secretary recognise that vital work as we seek to maintain a relationship with Europe and to align with it?

First, I take the opportunity to say a huge “Thank you” to everybody that works in Scotland house in Brussels—the representational office of Scotland in the capital of the European Union. That office was, I think, initiated under the Scottish Conservatives and opened under the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, and it continues to operate to this day. It does hugely positive work both in its relations with the multilateral organisations—primarily the European Union—based in Brussels and in bilateral relations with the Government of Belgium. The address, for those who do not know of the Scottish Government office in Brussels, is on Rond-point Robert Schuman, so there is a nice circularity in our proceedings this afternoon about all of that.

The challenge that Brexit has brought on the cultural front, in particular, is regularly raised by people in our culture and arts scene, in that that those of our artists who wish to tour can face great difficulty in doing so elsewhere in Europe. We continue to press the UK Government to seek changes, but the European Union has made it clear that to have free movement so that our cultural and artistic community can travel and perform across Europe is only possible if one accepts free movement of people. The UK Government is not prepared to do that. We will continue to press for it. In the meantime, the likes of Scotland House in Brussels will not only be working on optimal relations with the European Union but will host a wide range of cultural events.

The cabinet secretary talks about how Brexit has reduced the opportunities for young people, with the loss of freedom of movement and the Erasmus exchange programme. However, although the UK Government introduced a successful Turing scheme in 2021, with funding of £110 million for 2022-23, the Scottish Government has so far failed to provide any detail of its promise to develop a new strategy for international education. When will the Scottish Government provide us with the details for its replacement scheme?

I am interested to hear that the Turing scheme has been successful because, by any objective measure, when compared with the Erasmus programme, it has absolutely not been a success story. It is a great shame that our young people are being forced to operate through a scheme that is not as successful as the one that it replaced. I would love to see Scotland join the Erasmus scheme as a full member state. That is the only way in which we can do it, and it might be a good reason for Sharon Dowey to reconsider her position and embrace Scotland’s future membership of the EU.

Fighting crime is an example of where co-operation among EU states has proved to be particularly successful. The UK withdrawal from Europe has left a woefully complicated security landscape and I am in no doubt that it risks Scotland’s justice system being left behind as our European counterparts develop more effective tools for dealing with present and future threats, including serious and organised crime, cyberthreat and terrorism. On Europe day, will the cabinet secretary outline what engagement he has had with the UK Government to ensure that any change to EU retained law does not risk Scotland’s future security and our operational effectiveness in tackling crime, particularly cross-border crime?

There is no effective substitute for being part of the European institutions that deal with judicial and legal co-operation. I am pleased to say that the Lord Advocate and other colleagues in our legal services attend events that they can attend in order to find ways in which our legal system can maintain the highest level of judicial co-operation, albeit in an imperfect environment.

I can update the Parliament on retained EU law, in that we believe that the situation at Westminster is fast moving and the UK Government is, as we speak, performing a U-turn on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which would be hugely welcome. I understand that a new schedule on the issue might be published at Westminster as soon as tomorrow.

Has there been any consultation of the Scottish Government on this? No, there has not. Has the Scottish Parliament issued any consent? No, it has not. Do we know what the territorial extent of the bill in its new terms might be? No, we do not know that. If the UK Government is going to U-turn on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which was throwing the baby out with the bath water, and see whether we could save different bits of EU law by changing to a system under which it will legislate to get rid of such law, that will be a better way of doing things. We will work with the UK Government on that as soon as we have details from it.

In a written submission for the conference on the future of Europe, the Scottish Government said:

“Scotland will maintain alignment where possible and practical with EU legislation, standards, policies and programmes.”

It also previously outlined plans to implement a Scottish education exchange programme that would replace the Erasmus programme. Since then, no progress has been made on that programme. Instead, the Scottish Government continues to deflect any questions about the Erasmus programme, and the Erasmus+ programme was mentioned only briefly in the ministerial statement, which shows how much of a priority it is for the Scottish Government. The Welsh Labour Government has now implemented a scheme that is intended to replace Erasmus that has lined up more than 5,000 exchange opportunities since September 2022.

There is no reason why—

Can I please have a question, Mr Choudhury?

—the Scottish Government cannot deliver a similar scheme for young people in Scotland. When will the minister stop hiding behind the arguments for independence and act to realign Scottish priorities with EU practice to provide Scottish students with a replacement for the Erasmus programme?

To be fair, maybe Foysol Choudhury did not have time to get to the nub of the matter, which is that originally, as we all remember, a commitment was given to renationalisation of everything that was carried out at EU level. Those things relating to devolved matters would see repatriation of not just powers but budget, but that is not what happened.

We have not seen a repatriation of budget that would have gone towards the Erasmus scheme. Foysol Choudhury is absolutely right that work is in progress on how to have what can only be a second-best scheme—the best scheme is an Erasmus+ scheme. If he has any ideas about which bits of the education budget that is currently spent in Scotland he wishes to see cut to pay for a new programme, I will listen very closely to what the Labour Party is advocating.

Scotland benefits from EU alignment in many areas, but, with Brexit, we find ourselves cut off from the EU structural funds that helped our communities to flourish for decades, not to mention from the major €800 billion NextGenerationEU pandemic recovery programme, which has completely bypassed Brexit Britain. There are also massive barriers to European trade. While Scotland remains outside the single market, how does the cabinet secretary hope to maximise investment from our European partners?

First, we should commend the extraordinary successes of Scottish Development International, which does so much to ensure that Scotland is as attractive a place as it can be in the circumstances of Brexit Britain. I think that I am right in saying that Scotland remains the second-most successful part of the United Kingdom after London when it comes to inward investment.

SDI has talented and hard-working members of staff right across Europe, and there are a number of Scottish Government offices across the European Union in Paris, Brussels, Berlin and Copenhagen. They all do a tremendous job in promoting Scotland when it comes to inward investment, when it comes to the potential for jobs, when it comes to building on the tremendous new opportunities that we have in areas such as the renewables sector and when it comes to areas in which education co-operation matters a lot, as well as in the soft power and cultural dimension. That is all really good, and I am hugely grateful to everybody who does those jobs.

However, we cannot look by the reality that Brexit is a massively damaging phenomenon socially, economically and politically. That is why it is absolutely right that we do everything we can to remain as aligned as possible to the European Union. It would be great if the other political parties in the chamber embraced that as fully as they should.

I would like to get in all the members who have expressed an interest in asking a question, so I would be grateful for shorter questions and responses.

I do not understand why the minister is wriggling so much on Erasmus. It was a manifesto commitment in 2021, and Wales has done it already—they have had it for one year and they are about to go into the second year. However, there is no sign of a plan from Scotland. Why have we not got it? The minister has the powers; he could do what Wales has done, so why is he not getting on with it?

One of the major challenges that exists as a result of Brexit relates to the free movement of people, which includes the ability to live and study in other countries. If Willie Rennie would make the effort and speak to colleagues in Wales, where they have set up their own scheme, he would understand that they are suffering with the impact of the UK’s relationship with the European Union in terms of the free movement of people. The issue is not simply about having a scheme or finding resources; it is also about whether it is workable, given the circumstances of Brexit.

I give Willie Rennie full marks for his consistency in asking questions about this subject. However, it would make his argument a little bit more powerful if he made the effort to learn about the difficulties in setting up different schemes that operate within the Brexit system that the United Kingdom finds itself in.

The day-to-day impacts of Brexit are being felt across many industries. Based in my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin, GMAC Film is an organisation that trains budding film makers from all backgrounds, and it has provided to me first hand its account of how difficult post-Brexit bureaucracy has made working across Europe.

Glasgow and Scotland more widely are proudly internationalist. Does the minister agree that, although we do everything that is in our Parliament’s ability to remain aligned with the EU, the only way to ensure that we do not continue down the same path as this isolationist UK Government is through full EU membership as an independent nation?

Indeed I do, and a majority of those in this Parliament also believe that to be the case. I take the opportunity to place on record the hugely positive impression I have of GMAC, in Kaukab Stewart’s constituency, which does an absolute power of work and is contributing to the great success of Scotland’s film and television sector.

That sector would be significantly more successful were free movement of people to be restored to Scotland. The only way that that will happen is through Scottish membership of the European Union, but that membership is not being offered by the Conservative or Labour parties, nor indeed by the Liberal Democrats, who now say that they are not a rejoin party. If anyone has any aspiration for Scotland to be in the European Union, that will not happen through the United Kingdom; it will happen through Scottish membership of the European Union. That is a simple statement of fact.

The EU has set a target to collect 77 per cent of plastic bottles by 2025 and 90 per cent by 2029. Given the minister’s statement, and previous commitments, the Scottish Government will seek to match that. However, the Scottish Government has failed to meet a series of environmental targets, including the 2013 household recycling target and seven of 11 emissions targets, and is now on its third delay of the deposit return scheme. Does the cabinet secretary accept that this Government’s promises of alignment with EU environmental targets are worthless?

I do not. I return to the central reason for today’s statement, which is about ensuring that the Scottish Government’s alignment with the European Union, its legislation and its aspirations can be interrogated. I know Maurice Golden from my frequent attendance at the committee of which he is a member, where he asks exactly that kind of question and is right to do so. I am confident that the enhanced level of information that members will get about Scotland’s alignment with the European Union will be beneficial for committee scrutiny and will help Maurice Golden to continue with the scrutiny role that he performs with some distinction.

The Tories’ Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is not only a failure of statecraft but an attempt to systematically dismantle the state and, with it, the protections and rights that Britain helped to create during our decades of membership of the European Union. There are some welcome signs that the UK Government may be forced to weaken its approach to throwing EU laws over the cliff edge in December, but are there particular portfolios where the threat of a race to the bottom in standards still hangs over Scotland?

We must remain alive to all possibilities. A lot of effort is going on across the Scottish Government to prepare for the bill continuing as is currently proposed, which would mean that there would be a sunset unless we can find ways to retain EU law in Scots law—we have to understand the complication that some of this involves shared sovereignty. Those are contributing factors in why this is such an unworkable and unacceptable way of dealing with such important legislation, whether one likes individual pieces of legislation or not.

That is why the potential change that we might hear more about, as soon as tomorrow and certainly in the weeks ahead, is that the UK Government is going to put the horse before the cart, to be honest—it will seek to name the laws that it will get rid of, rather than getting rid of everything and working the other way around. If that is how things are going to proceed, that will be a lot more workable. The Scottish Government called on the UK Government to do that before it, once again, drove a coach and horses through the Sewel convention. I hope that common sense will prevail and that the UK Government will make a hugely welcome U-turn.

Environmental law, which covers food and other exports and tackles the biodiversity crisis, is one of the most important areas for alignment with the EU. Will the cabinet secretary give more detail about his approach to environmental law? As things stand, the sheer volume of environmental regulations will fall to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to scrutinise. Does he agree that, for Scotland to become an independent member of the European Union, our approach to that area of alignment will be key, as well as being in the interests of our own environmental standards?

Fiona Hyslop has had long experience of that portfolio and absolutely hits the nail on the head. That is why any change in the UK Government’s approach to retained EU law is absolutely key.

Most people in the chamber or watching proceedings are aware that the most numerous parts of European legislation are in the fields of rural affairs—agriculture and fisheries—and the environment. All of those are areas where it really matters to consumers and everybody else that we can retain the highest possible standards.

A really good start would be to try to make sure that we do not fall off the retained EU law cliff edge and that, going forward, we have an improved reporting structure vis-à-vis the committees and members of this Parliament, in terms of how we remain aligned. That is exactly what the Scottish Government is proposing.

Given the devastating warning from the Institute for Government about the damage that the passage of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill could do to the processes of parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary democracy, and the administrative exercise of power, and in terms of the power grab that the bill represents to UK Government ministers, has the cabinet secretary sought the agreement of all political parties in this chamber to make representations to the United Kingdom Government that it should not proceed as planned? If he has not done so, will he, as a matter of urgency, secure agreement to protect this Parliament from the recklessness of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?

I welcome John Swinney to his place and thank him for asking me that question. There is a bit of me that wishes that he had been able to ask that question right at the start, because we may have found out from their contributions whether Conservative and Labour members would have joined the Scottish Government in that.

We will.

I am hearing from Neil Bibby, who is speaking from a sedentary position, that he will. I am looking towards members on the Conservative benches to see whether there is any acknowledgement that they might too, but I am not really seeing any. Maybe it will take another statement or question to find out whether the Conservative Party in the Scottish Parliament will support the Conservative Party in the UK Government, or whether it will ask it to U-turn on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. That would be extremely sensible, but unfortunately it did not take the opportunity to make that clear earlier.

That concludes the ministerial statement. I will allow a moment for members to organise themselves for the next item.