 I2W business is portfolio questions. We start with question number one from Johann Lamont. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the situation at Glasgow School of Art? Following the tragic fire in June, the Macintosh building has been stabilized. Residents displaced by the fire have been able to return home. Both the Scottish Government and Glasgow City council have provided funding to local residents and businesses in recognition of the significant impact that the fire has had on them. I understand that some local street closures remain in place while further work is completed. Investigations into the cause of the fire are on-going, will be thorough and comprehensive, and it will take time to complete this complex task. Thank you. It is evident that the Glasgow School of Art has cultural, social and economic significance far beyond Glasgow itself. It is also evident that the impact of the fire at the Glasgow School of Art has had a very direct and very serious impact on the local community and local businesses, with significant implications, I believe, for the Glasgow and West of Scotland economy. I believe that it is a challenge that goes beyond that of the city itself. Can I ask if the minister is aware whether the cabinet secretary, who indicated that she did wish to hear directly from businesses that are concerned about whether she has met them and what the outcomes of those discussions were? If she has not met businesses and local residents, does she believe that she will commit to doing that to ensure that the response by the Scottish Government financially is to measure it with the scale of the challenge that the local community and local businesses now face as a consequence of that very serious fire? Thank you, Johann Lamont, for that question, and I agree with her comments about the significance of the building as an institution and its wider impact. The member will be aware that, in July, the Scottish Government announced that it would establish a recovery fund of up to £5 million to assist businesses that are impacted by the Glasgow fires. Today, Glasgow City Council has paid out more than £2.9 million from the fund to 195 businesses. With regard to her request for a meeting, I would request that the member writes to myself and the cabinet secretary with details of the businesses that she is in correspondence with, and we can consider that proposal. I have three supplementaries. The first is from Sandra White, followed by Adam Tomkins. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Minister, at the November meeting of Blythwood in Brumellaw Community Council, concerns were raised in regards to an update and lack of information pertaining to the fire recovery and also the fire investigation regarding the Glasgow School of Art. Can the minister provide an update on those areas as a lack of timescale and information is having a very real impact on the area, community and businesses, and indeed the future of the area of Suckey Hall Street as well? The investigation into the origin and cause and circumstances of the fire is a high priority for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and its specialist fire investigations teams. SFRS is working closely with Police Scotland and the health and safety executive. Significant investigation work has already been concluded, but the dangerous condition of the structure significantly restricted site access, including for the SFRS fire investigations. However, they are now on site and aim to conclude the investigation early in the new year. I would advise Sandra White to follow up any further correspondence with the SFRS and again to the Government if there are barriers for which they are prohibitive in that way. Adam Tomkins will be followed by Clare Baker. Glasgow School of Art says that the fire was nothing to do with them because the building was under other people's control at the time that it broke out in June. At the same time, the Glasgow School of Art says that rebuilding or taking decisions about rebuilding the Glasgow School of Art is a question exclusively for them. As Joanne Lamont said in her opening questions, and I completely agree with her, the impact on local businesses and the local community in terms of residents also in and around Suckey Hall Street has been massive and continues to be significant. Does the minister agree with me that decisions about the future of the Glasgow School of Art should not be taken by the school of art alone but in full consultation with both local residents and businesses? As Adam Tomkins stated in his question, it is a decision for the Glasgow School of Art over whether or not the Macintosh should be rebuilt. As the Macintosh building is owned by Glasgow School of Art, which is an independent body, its future is therefore a matter for the Glasgow School of Art board. The board has made it clear its intention to rebuild the Macintosh as a fully functional art school. The wider point, which I think is an important one, around engagement from the community and potentially I would imagine that there is a question there around whether there should be a GSA trust to be established to oversee the rebuild of the Macintosh building. The Mac again belongs to the Glasgow School of Art and decisions about the future of the building will rest with them. We expect the Glasgow School of Art to make governance arrangements, which allow the board to give proper attention to the school's core function of delivering high quality education within that consideration. The member may also wish to engage with colleagues in education and skills portfolio around any functionality of the institution in delivering high quality education. Given the significance of the cultural legacy of Charles Rennie Macintosh to the city of Glasgow and in light of the fact that both fires have not taken place, have the Government given any consideration—I noticed that the minister mentioned the idea of a trust—to the future of the building, if Glasgow art schools go ahead with the rebuild, as they intend to do, how the legacy of Charles Rennie Macintosh and any future building is protected for the city and for the nation, and not just for the art college. The questions around the trust, as answered to Adam Tomkins, belong to Glasgow School of Art because the Mac belongs to Glasgow School of Art. Any decisions about the future of that rest with them. I would state that the fact that the governance questions more widely are of pertinence in terms of how the board takes things forward. I would, of course, give cognisance and recognition to the fact that this is an issue currently before the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that inquiry. We all have an interest here in making sure that the institution is brought forward again to fulfil the function as a higher education institution and to do that as well as it has done over the decades, but also to continue to be one of the, as you said, important aspects of cultural legacy for the whole of Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to boost tourism and rural areas through the promotion of industrial heritage sites. Minister, action to promote tourism is a function of Visit Scotland undertaken in partnership with a wide range of other public bodies that are directly funded by the Scottish Government. Many of those bodies, including Historic Environment Scotland, the National Museums of Scotland, Museums Gallery Scotland, the National Industrial Museums and Transport Scotland, contribute to the promotion of our fascinating industrial heritage. Brian Whittle I thank the minister for that answer. The Scottish Industrial Railway Centre at the Dinascon near partner is home to a number of industrial steam and diesel locomotives, including the country's only working fireless locomotives. I was struck by the role places like this hard in Scotland's industrial heritage. It is run entirely by dedicated volunteers, although only open for a limited time attracts a steady stream of visitors. It has big ambitions, including bringing more of its old locomotives into service. What is the Scottish Government doing to support organisations like SIRC to grow and allow more tourists to discover this important part of our industrial heritage? As mentioned in my first answer, Museums Gallery Scotland is the national development body for museums and galleries in Scotland and is funded by the Scottish Government to support over 400 accredited institutions across the country. Whether that is by strategic investment, advice or other means, MGS aims to unite the sector and allow those institutions to develop and thrive. To date, in 2018, 32 organisations across 17 local authorities have received grant funding, totaling more than £1 million. We have also engaged in the Go industrial brand, which represents 12 museums across and galleries in Scotland that are accredited across Scotland. In terms of the Scottish industrial railway centre, I am grateful for Brian Whittle for raising that point and paying tribute to the work of the Ayrshire rail preservation group and their engagement in that. The wider support that I mentioned in terms of the provision through museums and galleries in Scotland is the appropriate means for such groups to bid for and engage with potential for support. The Scottish Government sets out how Scotland's most iconic rural tourist sites will benefit from the first round of the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund, the RTIF, to help to meet the demand of growing visitor numbers, including, for example, the otter pools in Bonnid and Freeson Galloway. As Ms Hislop announced on 5 October at Glenfinnan, through our Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund, we are funding more than £3 million of much-needed infrastructure improvements across 18 separate projects from Shetland to Dumfrieson Galloway, including the otter pools. Spread throughout six local authorities and both national park authorities, that support will deliver a range of improvements from camper van facilities, toilets, parking and pathway improvements that will benefit visitors who come to enjoy our stunning scenery and locals alike. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that all major tourist attractions receive sufficient levels of promotion. The Scottish Government supports Visit Scotland, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise to promote Scotland as a whole in order to maximise the economic benefit of tourism to Scotland. I thank the minister for his response. In February this year, it was revealed that, while most of the top 20 tourist attractions in Scotland enjoyed an annual increase in their visitor numbers, the Falkirk wheel was amongst two that saw a decrease. I believe that Edinburgh Zoo was the other one. The numbers of visitors to the wheel fell by 3.7 per cent, while other attractions with similar annual numbers received average increases of around 25 per cent. Does the minister know why that happened and what reassurances can he give me that the Falkirk wheel will receive its fair share of promotion? I thank Alison Harris for that question. The member will be aware of the initiatives that are taking place in her constituency around the Kelpies and the Scottish Canals in order to boost them as the remarkable attractions that they already are, and to continue that success and broaden the attraction. A new selfie trail encouraging families to get out and discover the genius of the fourth and Clyde canal has been launched between the Falkirk wheel and the Kelpies. Created by Scottish Canals as part of its Canals and Counters campaign, the Wheels to Kelpies selfie trail runs between two of Scotland's biggest landmarks, the Falkirk wheel and the Kelpies, along Scotland's oldest canal, the fourth and the Clyde. I encourage individuals to support that campaign, and the Scottish Government does absolutely treasure and recognises the importance of those two aspects of our tourist attractions. The minister will be aware of the Yall South archaeological site at the south end of Shetland at Sumbra. That site is currently under some pressure because of tour buses caused by the growth in the cruise line industry. At that site, there is a need for both the car park for the coaches and also toilet facilities. I have been seeking to broker a meeting with Historic Environment Scotland and all the parties. Will the minister undertake through his good office to make that happen, as is a desperate need for this, and we have so far not been able to confirm a date with Historic Environment Scotland, the only organisation that we need to make this happen? I thank Tavish Scott for that question. Of course, as he would understand it, it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government ministers to engage in operational matters. However, if he would like to write to me after this with further details, we can consider how we can engage to assist him in securing that meeting. I refer members to my legislative interest and membership of the Musicians Union to ask the Scottish Government how it supports the promotion of the Scottish music sector internationally. We fund Creative Scotland to support musicians across all genres of music. Since 2008, we have invested more than £21 million in the festivals expo fund, providing a global platform for Scottish musicians and other artists, opening up opportunities for outward touring. In addition, the platform for Creative Excellence place fund, which provides £15 million over the next five years, will help the Edinburgh festivals to develop their international work. We invest £350,000 annually to support the national performing companies through the international touring fund to tour internationally, and our programme for government commitments include an international creative ambition programme to be launched by May 2019. I thank the minister for that detailed answer. As the minister may be aware, I am convener of the cross-party group on music, and at every meeting that we have had since the group was established, the key concern of members representing a range of stakeholders from across music in Scotland is the threat posed by Brexit. The withdrawal agreement makes it absolutely clear that the overriding priority of the UK Government is to end freedom of movement, which would be devastating for our music sector in Scotland. I wonder if the minister agrees with me that any MP and for that matter any MSP who backs the withdrawal agreement is no friend of musicians in Scotland. Tom Arthur is absolutely right to point out that there is a distinct danger that the removal of access to freedom of movement would result in additional bureaucracy and border checks on touring artists, and we would be diminishing to the UK as a whole and Scotland's music industry. Indeed, UK music's recent survey on the economic impact of the music industry suggested that half of all respondents thought that Brexit would have a negative impact on the industry compared to only 2 per cent. We thought that it would be positive. The opportunity for Scottish young people to tour internationally is hugely important, one that not only promotes Scottish music but also enriches their lives. However, cuts to music tuition in schools because of this Scottish Government is failing Scottish pupils and is leading to lower levels of music uptake. Does the minister believe that that will help or hinder the promotion of Scottish music sector abroad? The member will note in my first answer the support that the Scottish Government gives to our music industry. With regard to the proportion of music funding for education, I think that the member would be better directed to place that question to the cabinet secretary for education. To ask the Scottish Government what help and support it offers to archaeological projects. I in the Scottish Government recognise the importance of our historic environment and the wealth of historic structures across the country. Many are at the heart of communities who have often worked hardest to secure their future. Scottish Government funding for archaeology is channeled via historic environment Scotland grant schemes. Despite recent financial constraints, we have maintained historic environment Scotland external grants at £14.5 million per year. £1.4 million is allocated for archaeology. A great deal of information about those schemes is available from their website, and staff offer comprehensive pre-application advice to potential applicants and support and advice through completion. Gail Ross I thank the minister for that answer. The Caithness Broch project in my constituency is doing some fantastic work in bringing the county's broch history to life. At this point, I would like to direct members to my register of interests as a patron of the organisation. They plan to build a full-sized broch and are undertaking various projects with schools and in the community. Will the minister or the cabinet secretary agree to meet with them to hear about all the work that they are currently doing and their plans for the future? Minister, I am aware of the Caithness Broch project and I am particularly impressed by the project's efforts to use and to engage with local communities, particularly with children. The Scottish Government appreciates the work that is being undertaken by the project to promote Caithness to its rich archaeological history and its proposals to build a full-scale broch as a visitor attraction. However, engagement with such a project of this nature would be best undertaken as an operational issue with Historic Environment Scotland and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, other Government agencies and the local council at this stage in developing their proposals. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for ministers to be involved. However, if we can be of assistance in encouraging and facilitating such engagements, then I would be happy to consider how we can do that. I wish Gail Ross and the project well in their on-going endeavours. 6. Alex Cole-Hamilton As the Scottish Government how it supports communities in the achievement of fair trade accreditation. The Scottish Government has provided £1.6 million in core funding to the Scottish Fair Trade Forum since its inception in 2007 to take forward our policy on fair trade. That includes realising in 2013 our ambition to achieve fair trade nation status, which was reconfirmed in 2017, and demonstrating Scotland's on-going progress in supporting and purchasing fair trade. Scotland currently has 97 fair trade communities, including all of Scotland's cities, and 27 of the 32 local authority areas. With our support, the forum continues to support active fair trade groups, and through the accreditation process in villages, towns and cities up and down the country. 6. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am grateful to the minister for that answer. South Queens Ffair Trade Group worked very hard to achieve fair trade accreditation for the town of South Queens Ffair. That they got in January this year. Understandably, we are very keen to demonstrate that by erecting signage at the town's markers, only to discover that Transport Scotland has a fast policy to stop communities from erecting such signage, given that fair trade is a commercial brand. Does the minister agree with me that this is a miserly decision and is in danger of disincentivising town's achieving fair trade status? I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for raising that point. I am aware of the Queens Ffair trade group and congratulate them on their work of achieving fair trade royal borough status. I am aware that Alex Cole-Hamilton has had previous parliamentary questions in correspondence with the then Transport Minister Humza Yousaf. I would like to offer today whether Alex Cole-Hamilton would like to have a meeting with me and potentially the Fair Trade Forum following this meeting to discuss the matter in more detail. That concludes our portfolio questions on culture, tourism and external affairs. We turn now to questions on government business and constitutional relations. Question 1 has been withdrawn. Question 2, Liam Kerr. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the views of business groups regarding its position on Brexit and wider constitutional affairs. Cabinet Secretary, Michael Russell. I shall start again. Professor Tomkins pointed out that even debaters of the year can get their debating skills wrong. The Scottish Government's position on Brexit and the economy was and is now framed by the joint statement issued on 7 July 2016 by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Federation of Small Businesses, Scottish Financial Enterprise, Scottish Council of Development Industry, Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. When the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work last met those same organisations that discussed Brexit in September, their focus remained on trade, free movement, the support and clarity of businesses that need to plan, invest and grow. I have also spoken to several of those organisations in recent weeks about the current situation and the deal that the UK Government has agreed with the European Union, which we regard as worse than the current position within the EU. It provides for the UK and Scotland within it to leave the single market and that will damage Scotland's economy, jobs and living standards. On that point, I want to press the minister on something that he said last week, which is that the current withdrawal agreement is better than no deal. Can he therefore here and now unequivocally confirm that if and when it comes to it, the SNP will confront reality and vote to avoid no deal? The member's version of reality is ever an unusual one. The reality of this situation is that there is no need to make that choice. The House of Commons can, and I am sure will, rule out a no deal. Certainly this deal, as offered by the Prime Minister, is a very bad deal indeed, and it needs to be rejected because of the damage that it will do to Scotland and to the member's region. The member should recognise that. The region that the member represents will be particularly hard hit by this deal, and there will be severe economic damage to the businesses and the business organisations that he has mentioned in his question. It will be far better that he faced reality, the reality of Brexit, rather than whistling in the wind. Annabelle Ewing? As we are talking about the views of business groups, does the cabinet secretary not agree that it was in fact quite instructive to see that the CBI's head of EU negotiations suggested in an email that there was no need to give credit to the negotiators, because it is not a good deal? There is no doubt that it is not a good deal. It is also not the only deal, and for the Prime Minister to present this as being the only option, is completely and utterly wrong. The deal is as it is, because of the red lines that the Prime Minister set herself at the start of the negotiations. She did that to try and keep a fractious Tory party together and try to paper over the 40-year civil war. What has come out of the process is exactly what was expected, because what went into the process was the red lines. We should draw attention to the uniquely difficult situation of Scotland with regard to freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is absolutely essential for the Scottish economy and in rural areas particularly. Without freedom of movement, there will be a very substantial decline in economic performance and a substantial shortage of labour, which is already becoming apparent. Those are realities. Those are the realities of this question. We should be saying that loud and clear. We should say to businesses that, of course, we understand that you wish this over. We all want this over, but they started it and they are making an incredible mess of it. To ask the Scottish Government what impact assessment has been undertaken regarding the potential economic cost to Scotland of additional customs arrangements and border regulations resulting from Brexit. Scottish Government analysis, published in Scotland's Place in Europe, people, jobs and investment earlier this year, assessed the implications for Scotland's economy of the UK exit the European Union. This modelling used a range of Brexit shocks, including estimates of the trade costs associated with customs arrangements and border regulations. Results from the analysis indicate that a scenario in which the UK produces a free trade agreement could lead to a loss of up to 6.1 per cent of GDP, £9 billion in 2016 terms, in Scotland by 2030. That is equivalent to £1,600 per person in Scotland. Likewise, a hard Brexit could lead to a loss of up to 8.5 per cent of GDP, or £12.7 billion in 2016 terms, in Scotland by 2030, equivalent to £2,300 per individual. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Indeed, I agree with much of that analysis. The reality has become clear that the costs of Brexit are from additional customs arrangements and market regulations that do not currently exist, but surely those would also exist if there is a differential deal between different parts of the United Kingdom. I was wondering if the economic assessment that he has just made in terms of Brexit with the rest of Europe and Scotland could also be applied to any deals within the UK if there is a differential deal. There are considerable issues arising out of differentiation, but those issues particularly reflect the advantages to areas that would have a differentiated outcome, particularly in Northern Ireland, where there is a strong view that there would be considerable advantages for Northern Ireland, for example, in inward investment, where investing in Northern Ireland would give access to the single market. There are issues to be addressed here. The First Minister indicated yesterday in presenting the paper on Scotland's place in Europe, the assessment of the UK Government's proposed future relationship with the EU, that further work needed to be done to quantify the actual advantages, but clearly those advantages would exist. I might note, Presiding Officer, that of course the figures that I have given here are broadly borne out by the figures that the UK Government has published today, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own admission that Brexit on every scenario will make people worse off and the country worse off. Nobody would have thought that it was the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward policies that made people poorer. Question 4, Alex Rowley. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding the UK's exit from the EU to ensure that Scotland is promoted as a destination for economic migration. Minister Ben Macpherson, migration is crucial to the development of Scotland as a thriving nation. I recently met the UK immigration minister and again sought her commitment to meaningful engagement, given the profound impact that migration has on Scotland's economy, public services and demography. We submitted compelling evidence to the Migration Advisory Committee and, disappointingly, the proposals that the Prime Minister's cabinet has accepted ignore sectors that are integral to Scotland. The UK Government's discredited hostile environment policies damage our ability to attract the people that we need and recommendations in the max reports would harm our prosperity. That is why the Scottish Government will continue to argue for a tailored and more flexible migration system that meets our distinct needs. Alex Rowley. I thank the minister for that answer. What progress does the Scottish Government make in making that case that Scotland has, a specific case to see more powers over migration immigration policy devolve to Scotland? Does he agree that more work needs to be done by the Government to promote the benefits of migration to the wider Scottish public? Minister. In terms of achieving more devolution of powers in order to build that more flexible and tailored migration system, myself and the rest of the Government are working on a constant basis to work with stakeholders who are raising concerns with us about the max recommendations and about the effective Brexit, as well as the hostile environment policy. We are going through a constructive process of raising awareness with business and other stakeholders about what opportunity there would be in having devolution of powers in order to do things differently here in Scotland. That is devolution of powers within the current UK system to build flexibility and be able to deliver for our needs. In terms of the point about raising awareness, all of us in this chamber have a responsibility to champion the positive benefits of migration, especially in the current environment, when there are absolutely awful things being said, such as EU nationals skipping the queue, as the Prime Minister said recently, shocking remarks. I would point the member to our We Are Scotland campaign from the Scottish Government, which has been very successful at highlighting and championing the positive benefits of migration that we should all celebrate. To ask the Scottish Government what involvement it currently has with the UK Government's Migration Advisory Committee in relation to advice on migration policy post-Brexit. The Scottish Government has made it clear to the UK Government and the Migration Advisory Committee that Scotland's needs in relation to migration policy are distinct and significant. The Scottish Government provided a detailed response to each of the max calls for evidence, but that evidence has been largely ignored. We have highlighted to the UK Government that the max recommendations in their reports are disappointing to employers, local authorities, third sector organisations and universities across Scotland. The Scottish Government has met with and heard evidence from a range of stakeholders to discuss the impact of the max recommendations and hear their concerns. The Scottish Government shares those concerns and we are committed to listening to and promoting the interests of individuals and organisations across Scotland. I have met personally with Professor Manning, the chair of the Mac and the UK immigration minister to discuss the needs of Scotland and reiterated our concerns in relation to the max recommendations. I am pleased that the minister mentioned Professor Manning, the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee. Is he aware that when Professor Manning earlier this month gave evidence to a committee of this Parliament, he admitted that no specific modelling of the situation in Scotland had ever been done? That was in relation to migration. There is now a consultation about the shortage occupation list and Scotland has very specific interests in that regard. I ask the minister what strong and firm representations are being made about those very specific Scottish interests. Thank Linda Fabiani for that question. She is indeed right to say that the Mac report paid little cognisance to Scotland with only one page, page 1, 2, 3, 2 pages rather and 1, 2, 4—a little bit on 1, 2, 4—being allocated to Scotland. The member is right to raise the point about what engagement we are having with the Mac. Indeed, the UK Government around the shortage occupation list, the UK Minister for Immigration gave me an undertaking in the summer in August. Again, this week, when I met with our second time, Scottish interests and Scottish Government input would be respected and constructively considered in terms of the shortage occupation list. The Scottish Government, of course, will be responding robustly to the Mac's call for evidence in its consultation on the Scottish occupation shortage list. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to meet its commitment in the programme for government to oppose legislative consent to all UK legislation relating to EU withdrawal. Cabinet Secretary. Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government remains committed to working with the UK Government to ensure a functioning statute book in the event of EU exit. We are working closely together on the secondary legislation programme required in active discussions on primary legislation, for example, on the agriculture and fisheries bill and the reciprocal healthcare bill. Opposition on EU exit notwithstanding, the Scottish Government is not therefore opposed to legislative consent on UK legislation relating to Brexit. However, the UK Government made clear in relation to the EU withdrawal bill that it intended to proceed regardless of the fact that the Parliament did not consent to the bill. I pressed the UK Government to make clear whether it intends to proceed without such consent on such legislation in the future. Until and unless we can be assured that the decisions of this Parliament will be respected, we will not bring forward any legislative consent motions on Brexit-related provisions except in the most exceptional of circumstances. It is, of course, important that this Parliament scrutinise Brexit-related legislation. We are lodging legislative consent in line with the standing orders, setting out our views on the substance of the UK proposals. We will, of course, contribute fully to committee consideration and ensure that this Parliament is able to express its views on Brexit-related provisions in UK bills. Gordon Lindhurst. Last week, the cabinet secretary gave an assurance to my colleague Adam Tomkins that he would speak to the relevant minister regarding legislative consent for what is literally a vital health care international arrangements bill. Can he confirm that that meeting has taken place? I have spoken to the relevant cabinet secretary and I am studying the bill and its implications to see whether it would be possible or necessary for us to make an exception. I do not know that yet and I will not know that until we are closer to the passage of the bill. I have to say that we were only given virtually no notice, ours's notice, of the bill itself, so that has not been made easier by the practice of the UK. However, there is an easier way to take this issue forward. The easier way to take this issue forward is for David Lidington, who is in this building tomorrow, to accept the offer that we have made in terms of changes to the legislative consent process that would do what we have asked to be done to make sure that it could be relied on as an arrangement between two parliaments and respected. In those circumstances, if he were to do so and if the member were to bring his good offices, has he any on the members of the UK cabinet, then we could resolve this matter very quickly. To ask the Scottish Government, to what extent the UK Government has consulted with it regarding the draft agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Presiding Officer, devolved administrations did not see the draft agreement before it was published on 14 November, despite a joint ministerial committee taking place the evening before. Throughout the Brexit process, the UK Government has not engaged the Scottish Government in any meaningful way, and there has been little or no opportunity to scrutinise, let alone make any changes to agreements that will have a major impact on Scotland and devolved responsibilities. Any reasonable person would consider that to be completely unacceptable. I sat on the joint ministerial committees with the UK Government over much of the last couple of years, and I know that the minister has taken part in ministerial forums with the UK Government. Given what the minister has just said, is it his own impression that, in his current form, those committees are allowing Scotland a meaningful input into the UK's decisions on Brexit? It is no secret that we have been frustrated by the quality of engagement with the UK Government. We have been disappointed that the discussions in the joint ministerial committee, which the Cabinet Secretary for Government, Business and Constitutional Relations attends, have fallen short of the original aim of the committee. Similar frustrations exist in regard to the joint ministerial forum, despite the best intentions on the part of this Government and indeed Welsh colleagues. Engagement in both has fallen way short of the Prime Minister's own commitment to full involvement of the devolved administrations. The UK Government has not engaged with the devolved administrations, meaningfully to agree the detail of negotiating positions and ensure that Scotland's interests are protected in workable proposals. It cannot be right that decisions on the future relationship with the EU have been taken without due regard for consultation across the four Governments of the UK. We need to see a dramatic change in attitude and practice. Stuart McMillan Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what engagement the Cabinet Secretary for Government, Business and Constitutional Relations has undertaken with port authorities regarding the implications of Brexit. I, along with other ministerial colleagues, have visited a number of ports to understand their interests, as well as concerns about leaving the EU. I have met the British Ports Association, which represents most ports in Scotland, the UK Chamber of Shipping and the UK Major Ports Group. Stuart McMillan I thank the cabinet secretary for her reply. The cabinet secretary was aware that my constituency is home to the Greenock Ocean terminal, one of Scotland's busiest ports. With more than 90 cruise ships booked so far for the port of Greenock next year, as well as the port activity that takes place, the normal activity that takes place, can he confirm that the Scottish Government is working to ensure that Brexit does not affect the cruise ship market and the tourism boost that it provides to my constituency and the local economy? Insofar as we can ensure such a thing, we would endeavour to do so. Of course, the cruise ship market is a growing and very important market. It is in my constituency of our garland butte of great importance. The cruise ship market depends not just on ports, but on sentiment. It depends on the view of people who will come and wish to visit Scotland. We hope that they will continue to wish to visit Scotland. It is important that Scotland is seen as a welcoming place. Brexit has not been a welcoming activity. Brexit has been an activity that has said to the rest of the world that the UK is not a place that is necessarily warm and inviting. I hope that we can overcome that. The best way to overcome that will be to remain within the EU. To ask the Scottish Government for its view on the implications of the draft withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU for constitutional relations between the Scottish and UK Governments. The main lesson for constitutional relations from the whole process of Brexit, and now the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, is that the UK Government will ignore the views of the people of Scotland as expressed in the EU referendum and in this Parliament. The UK Government has consistently rejected any possibility of a closer and different relationship with Scotland with the EU while seeking, rightly and properly, such a relationship for Northern Ireland. The views of the people, Parliament and Government of Scotland have not been reflected or respected in the objectives or approach of the UK Government to the negotiations, calling into question any claim that the UK is a partnership of nations or any claim for respect for Scotland within the union. Bill Bowman, thank you for that answer. Further to that, the cabinet secretary has said that there would be a second Scottish referendum if the Prime Minister's deal passes. Pete Wishart said that there will be one if no deal happens, and Ian Blankford has said that there will be a referendum if single-market and customs union membership are ruled out, something that the cabinet secretary once said is clearly not going to happen. Is there any situation in which the Scottish Government will do the right thing by the Scottish people and businesses and end their referendum obsession? That has animated the Tory benches like nothing else this afternoon. What they might like to reflect on is why are we in this difficulty at the present moment. Why are we facing the economic calamity that we are facing? Why are we facing the dislocations that we are facing? The answer is the Conservatives, their 40-year-long civil war in Europe and their referendum. Indeed, the people who should withdraw their obsession with the referendum are the Conservatives because it is the referendum that got them into this mess. The reality of the situation is that I am glad that Mr Bowman is such a close student of everything that I say that Pete Wishart says and Ian Blankford says. Actually, he has misquoted all of us, but I forgive him because I know that it is difficult to listen to such careful, thoughtful arguments and make sense of all of them. I will put it very simply to him. I believe in democracy. I believe in the people of Scotland. There are the howls, there are the howls of the anti-Democrats who have got us into this position, have got us into this position, but the reality is that I am a Democrat. I believe that at the end of the day the people of Scotland will have—I will not be shouted down in this chamber or anywhere else, and I say nor will Scotland be shouted down by the Tories in any way, because when the moment comes, the people of Scotland will have the right to choose between the Brexit being foisted upon them, being—the Tories can shout at Scotland all they like. In fact, the engagement with Scotland—the engagement that these Tories are having with Scotland today is considerably greater than their Prime Minister will be having when she skulks and hides away from the people of Scotland in Glasgow. As far as the Government is concerned, we will give the people of Scotland the right to choose because they deserve that right. They do not deserve to be dragged out of Europe against their will. Thank you. On that note, we end portfolio questions. We are going to turn now to the next item of business, which is a debate in the name of Miles Briggs on a new approach that is needed to tackle Scotland's drug crisis. We will resist it a few seconds for ministers to change seats.