 Michael Russell, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. On 23 June 2016, Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. Every unpalatable consequence that arises from Brexit does so therefore as a result of the UK Government defying and denying that democratic decision. Leaving the EU just 100 days from tomorrow with no deal in place would be the worst such consequence imaginable. A no deal exit from the EU would have very severe impacts on Scotland and would result in irreparable damage to our economy, our people and our society. We know that and are compelled to say so. Our neighbours like Ireland know that and have been saying so for a long time. Now the entire EU 27 knows that and will be saying so tomorrow. Even the UK Government knows it to be true as it is acknowledged at its Cabinet meeting today. What a tragedy it is, what a scandal. The members of the Parliament here on the Tory benches will still not condemn their reckless colleagues, who are carelessly or willingly taking their fellow citizens to the brink of disaster. They will neither join the rest of us in finding a sensible way to honour Scotland's choice and avoid a no deal Brexit, nor work with us to urge the Prime Minister to rule out a no deal Brexit by revoking or at least suspending article 50. Scotland deserves better and needs better from the Prime Minister's blindfold EU exit or a no deal, both of which would cause untold chaos. Last week, I made it clear in this chamber that the Scottish Government believes that it is time to put the choice about our future back to the people in a second referendum. That is more urgent than ever now. It is essential that the UK Parliament takes control of the process, demonstrates that there is a majority for a people's vote and starts work on the legislation that will deliver another referendum. However, this Scottish Government as a responsible Government must also prepare the nation and the people in so far as it can for any eventuality, including that of a no deal. Let me say at the outset that, whilst this Government will do everything we can to prepare and help, we must not let anyone believe that we can do everything. That would be impossible for any Government anywhere. We will, however, work with all those who have a similar task, including the UK Government, and tomorrow I will be meeting UK ministers to further discuss those matters. Let me outline the Scottish Government's overall approach. Over the past few months, I have met with each of my cabinet colleagues to discuss their expectations and concerns about a no deal scenario. That process was underpinned by detailed work across Government to identify the risks and potential impacts of EU exit and the mitigating actions that we and others could take across a wide range of issues. Through those processes, we have considered in detail the legislative, organisational and financial issues arising out of a possible no deal. Furthermore, weekly meetings of score the Scottish Government's Resilience Committee have been held with the Deputy First Minister convening. Those meetings have input from other cabinet secretaries, including those responsible for health, justice, transport, rural and finance, as well as their officials, other organisations such as Transport Scotland, Food Standards Scotland and Marine Scotland, COSLA, Civil Contingencies Responders and, of course, Police Scotland. That structure is supported by a rapid response group of officials, which will grow as need requires. The issue of staffing is a key one. Across the Scottish Government, directorates are refocusing on detailed preparations for a no deal, realigning staff towards this work where required. We are mobilising the Scottish Government and its associated agencies and public bodies, and we are aligning our existing financial and staff resources towards those areas with specific no deal impacts, ensuring that we have the right people in the right places with the right skills to respond quickly and effectively. Given the wide range of problems that a no deal exit would undoubtedly bring, ministers and members will understand that our plans and preparations are wide-ranging, too. Within that, there are a number of key areas of focus. It is well recognised, for example, that the new customs arrangements and regulatory checks that a no deal would involve would severely disrupt the flow of goods at UK borders, particularly Dover, which handles many of our key goods such as food and medicines. A no deal exit would also jeopardise Scotland's food security, as well as seriously harming the ability of Scottish food and drink producers to expork their goods to the EU, such as our beef and lamb, which would face significant tariffs. Half of all the food that the UK consumes is imported. Of the food imported, around 70 per cent comes from the EU. It is expected that the availability and the price of food and drink are likely to be significantly affected, with a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable in our society. Consequently, the Scottish Government, including Transport Scotland, is working with distributors, with purchasers, with suppliers, with transport providers, with the ports and with CMAL, to fully assess the impact and identify what can be done to help mitigate disruption. It is our aim to try to secure the best flow of essential goods into Scotland using existing routes or developing new ones. In health and social care, a no deal will put at risk the supply of medicines and medical devices. It will have a negative impact on our health and social care workforce, on-going clinical trials, access to future EU funding and the rights of Scottish citizens to access state-provided healthcare across the EU. Our attempts to ensure continuing supplies of medicines are being severely hampered by the refusal of the UK Government to provide us with critical information about which medicines may be subject to supply problems. It is imperative that they provide this information now. Just two hours ago, the UK Government, after sustained pressure from this Government, have indicated that it would share medicines data, but we still await the information. In addition, work on stockpiling of medical devices and clinical consumables in Scotland is on-going, and we will have financial implications for us, which could necessitate bringing forward funding from next year. If there was a no deal exit, we would lose access to many of the security and law enforcement co-operation measures that Police Scotland and the Crown Office use on a daily basis to keep people safe. We would lose membership of Europe and use of the European arrest warrant. We would also lose access to vital information sharing arrangements. That would represent a significant downgrading of our policing and security capability at a time when cross-border crime and security threats are increasing. Police Scotland are considering what actions could be taken to substitute for these arrangements and are organising to be prepared for civil contingencies' emergencies. Finally, let me turn to fishing. Members will know that, unlike the UK as a whole, Scotland is a net exporter of seafood, with EU member states accounting for 77 per cent of Scottish overseas seafood exports in 2017. Any delays that are experienced at the vital Dover Calais Euro Tunnel corridor will have a catastrophic impact on our seafood industry and, in turn, on our remote, rural and coastal communities that rely either wholly or partly on seafood sectors. I feel that particularly keenly given my constituency interests. The economic effect of a no deal, most especially in new tariff and non-tariff barriers and the disruption to trade with the EU would therefore be felt both severely and immediately. We are investigating actively what routes might be available to ensure that such goods get to market, although the lack of inspection staff and the reversion of the UK to third country status may well be insuperable in the short term. So much for the UK Government and those benches being concerned for the fishing communities. There are, of course, many other issues on the list of risks and issues that are being regularly updated and work is being done on all of them. In the time available to me, let me emphasise four overarching issues that need to be noted. First, one of the biggest difficulties facing us is the problem of getting information from the UK Government. There are signs that this is improving slowly in some areas, but it is essential that the UK Government sees the provision of such information and the sharing of plans along with joint working as a process that requires the close involvement of and respect for the institutions of the devolved administrations. This is a matter that I will stress again in London tomorrow. Secondly, we continue to press the UK Government to assess fully the financial implications of leaving the EU. It has been clear that Scotland's public finances must not suffer detriment. In the event of a no deal, it would require to be an urgent transfer of funds from the UK Government to allow the Scottish Government to meet the obligations that it would have to enter into. Some money is already being spent, and the financial implications of EU exit and associated preparation activity have been raised on a number of occasions by the cabinet secretary for finance with the chancellor and the chief secretary to the treasury. Thirdly, the nebulous approach of the UK Government to decision making on Brexit has meant that it is impossible to know when those plans might need to go into effect. The Scottish Cabinet agreed this morning building on existing planning and activity to further accelerate work to mitigate the potential impacts of the UK leaving the EU without a deal. We are undertaking necessary preparations to enable us to operate our arrangements at very short notice. I assure this chamber that I will keep it informed. I make an offer to the party leaders and Brexit spokespeople to ensure that they are briefed whenever new developments make a move to activating our plans more likely. Finally, it is vital that the people of Scotland get a clear, consistent message about the work that is being done. We are using all the normal communication channels to do so. We will step up that activity in terms of public information when and if we are required to put those plans into operation. It is essential that there is a single, clear, co-ordinating structure to take forward the plans and to measure them against the reality of what is taking place. Under the leadership of the Deputy First Minister, that will be the score mechanism, which is now in operation, and it will report to the First Minister. A no-deal cliff-edge exit is not yet inevitable. Indeed, leaving the EU is not yet inevitable. However, as a responsible Government, we cannot wait any longer. The consequences and risks are too pressing and too severe. Given the current situation, it is incumbent on us to step up our existing planning for a no-deal outcome in the ways that I have just outlined. The evidence is clear that a no-deal would be a disaster. Again, I call on the Tories to work with us to rule it out. The challenges are not of our making, but being able to measure up to them is something that we can and must do. Thank you very much. I call on Adam Tomkins to be followed by Neil Findlay. The minister has just spent 10 minutes unpicking his own argument. He opposes a no-deal Brexit, so do I. He considers that all necessary steps should be taken to avoid a no-deal Brexit, so do I. The truth, Presiding Officer, is that there does not need to be any risk at all of a no-deal Brexit. For the simple reason—simple enough even for the minister to understand—that there is a deal on the table, a concluded, negotiated withdrawal agreement, which I support, but which SNP MPs are set to vote down. Why does the minister not accept that the only people risking a no-deal Brexit are those who stand like him in opposition to the Prime Minister's deal? It is sad, I think, to see the state to which Professor Tomkins has come. This is a very serious situation. It needs to be treated with gravity. It is a situation not of the making of this chamber of the people of Scotland, of any of the parties here, except Professor Tomkins' own party, which has made this problem. The only response to it that we can get from the Tories is to get up and to blame somebody else. I hope that those who are listening to this elsewhere will realise that the response to this very grave and serious situation from the front bench of the Tories is to cackle, like to quote the Bible, thorns under an empty pot, so is the laughter of fools. That is a quote, incidentally, in case you were going to upbraid me for it. Can I say to Professor Tomkins that the UK cabinet spent this entire morning talking about a no-deal outcome? It is now sending letters to 146,000 businesses. I understand that the Brexit secretary was talking today about the disaster that could take place, but that does not matter, because all that Professor Tomkins who is still shouting into this chamber is into the air because it is always to do with something other than the Tories. It is, Presiding Officer, the Tories that have brought us to this mess. It is clearly that the Tories cannot get us out of it. Neil Findlayton, followed by Ross Greer. Thanks, Presiding Officer. It is always telling to observe Mr Tomkins' body language on these occasions, because I know that Les Mis is coming on TV over the holidays, but you only need to look at the front bench to see the miserable as they are. Mr Tomkins did not believe a single word that he says, and he has not believed a single word all the way through this sham. The Tories are taking Britain to the brink and a game of chance that risks everything to try and save this incompetent and useless Government. They have created in two years huge uncertainty for our economy, for businesses and their employees. Labour has consistently warned against the no deal outcome, and now it is clear that Tory incompetence is pushing us towards it. If Tory MPs act in the interests of the country, not in the interests of the Conservative Party and work to end this madness, then Labour stands ready to negotiate with a customs union plan that solves the backstop issue, the main, though far from being the only, problem. That statement shows us that there are huge problems in major areas of the economy and our society, at our borders, in food security, in transport, in health and social care, in medicine supplies, policing and law enforcement, in fishing and exporting and, of course, much, much, much more. With all that catastrophe taking us to the edge, what a dereliction of duty it is for Scottish Tory MPs and MSPs to sit there and take a vow of silence. Mr Findlay, could you ask a question of the cabinet secretary, please? I am going to ask a question. Their party's hatred of the EU clearly outstrips their concern for business, employees and communities. There is, however, still time to change. That cannot be a choice between maize deal or no deal. That is no choice whatsoever. So will the cabinet secretary now publish details of the work being done in each directorate? Can he advise how many times and how many ministers have met their UK counterparts to specifically discuss no deal planning? I can't advise what budget has been allocated and staffing resource identified to prepare for such a scenario. The Scottish Government is right to plan for no deal. Indeed, it must, but we need further detail. I thank the member for his questions and I certainly concur with him that the position of the Scottish Tories on this is absolutely appalling. It is a dereliction of duty, and they continue to behave in a way that no person could take them seriously. If I can just address his points, I am reluctant to burden out the staff with even more publications, but I am happy to give him access to any information that I possibly can. I will sit down and talk to him about that and how we can do so. On the second point of communication, I am happy to discover how many communications have been, but I know, for example, that Michael Matheson was in touch with his counterpart just last week, pressing for more information, and I think that many of my colleagues would do so, and I will try to get him that information. It is important to recognise that we are in a situation in which he is fast moving and creating a great deal of pressure for staff in terms of the actual costs and staff moving. I noticed figures that were published last week, and I will get them to the member if he has not yet seen them on the staffing full-time equivalents that are engaged in that. Now, there is a difficulty in accessing fully what money is being spent, simply because it is so fast moving, but we will make sure that information is provided. I accept absolutely what the cabinet secretary said, that not only have we been taken to the brink of disaster, we have been taken to the brink of disaster by the most incompetent Government in modern history. That is absolutely not something that the Scottish Government is doing, but sometimes we all must play with the hand that we are dealt with, especially Governments. Given that and given the cabinet secretary's response to Neil Finlay, could I ask, in comparison to the 105 technical notices that the UK Government has put into the public domain, what information will the Scottish Government put into the public domain, as opposed to that which they will brief MSPs on? Each part of the Scottish Government is dealing directly with stakeholders on those issues, and that is one of the benefits of having a smaller Government. We are able to do so, so there is a great deal of dialogue going on. I know that all the members would like more material that is published and put in front of them. I am trying to do the best that we can with the resources that we have to keep people updated, but also where there are requests, as Mr Finlay has made a request and play, that has been echoed by Mr Greer, for some further information, I will endeavour to get some further information sent from officials. However, the situation that we are trying to cope with here is to move step by step to the stage where, if we had to put our plans into operation, we would be able to do so virtually immediately. That is my main focus, and I am sure that members will accept that it is best that that is my main focus, rather than being distracted from it at this stage. Willie Rennie to be followed by Joan McAlpine. I cannot believe that we are having these discussions of this nature. No responsible Government would ever allow that to happen, but that this is real shows how irresponsible the Conservative Government has become. Is he as frustrated as I am about the inability of the UK Government and the loyal opposition or about its inability to lead this country or lead the Parliament? If the Parliament cannot decide the future on Brexit, surely it is up to the people, how can we make that people's vote happen? I agree with Mr Rennie that that is the key issue now, how the people can be given the opportunity to give their verdict, not on what happened two and a half years ago, but on a verdict that has happened over the past two and a half years and the situation that we are now in, and to make an informed choice. I believe that when put to the test in the House of Commons there could be a majority for a people's vote, I think that there is an enormous danger, whether actively or passively, allowing this matter to continue to run on into the third week of January, where the potential for being able to take corrective action diminishes day by day. So I am happy to work with a member and to work with anybody to find a way to forcing that issue, and I would hope right across the opposition parties that there might be some change of heart in that and that people would say, we need to get that done. I cannot, I think that there are three possibilities probably left on the table now. One is the no deal and it is absolutely wise that we prepare for that. It is a nightmarish prospect and I spent a great deal of time on this in the last several months. I have to say that I do not sleep easy at night when I consider it. The second one is the Theresa May deal, which is an appalling deal that is very damaging to Scotland, particularly in terms of freedom of movement. Indeed, one sees today some indication that the UK Government has quite paper, which has been delayed for 18 months in migration when it comes out, will be even worse. That is very frightening indeed, or the people's vote. It is the people's vote that all sensible people should settle on, and we should get on and do it. Thank you. The Scottish Council Development and Industry told this Parliament's Europe Committee that a no deal will create substantial delays for imports and exports at airports and ports, with perishable food and drink particularly at risk. The Scottish Pharmacutical, Chemical and Related products will no longer be accredited for sale in the EU, and the attractiveness of Scotland as a leading destination for inward investment will be severely damaged, and the supply of workers will decrease in an already tight labour market, which will cross prices to rise for consumers. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me and the SCVO that no amount of mitigation can prevent such calamitous consequences of a no deal Brexit? I agree that it is very difficult—I have made that absolutely clear. It is not only difficult, it is impossible to mitigate all the effects of this. The member raises one particular sector that is of enormous importance in Scotland, which is the pharmaceutical sector. Of course, leaving the European Medicines Agency has meant that the agency has moved to Amsterdam. That is bad enough. In the event of no deal, there would be no arrangement in place. That was a key issue that members may remember during the referendum. Michael Gove, in particular, stampeded around the country telling people that having our own medicine agency would accelerate the production of new drugs. That was utterly untrue. First of all, drugs cannot be tested for the EMA outside the EU, so that means that we have lost jobs and we have lost potential jobs, and we have lost part of an industry. In addition to that, the UK becomes a small part of the global pharmaceutical market, about 3 per cent, as a result of which there will be work done to satisfy the EU regulations and the USA regulations before the UK has even touched. What was a promise and a session turns out to be completely hollow and it is costing all of us, dear? Murdo Fraser, to be followed by Annabelle Ewing. If there were to be a second referendum on the EU, would the Scottish Government accept the result? It is still not possible for Murdo Fraser to rise to the occasion. We are here looking at the serious consequences of a no deal. Murdo Fraser thinks that he is in some school debating contest. He would not actually win a school debating contest, but he is in some sort of school debating contest. He thinks that, by a clever question—it is not a particularly clever question, but by a clever question—he can deflect in some way, Presiding Officer, the attention not just of this Parliament, but the attention of the Scottish people on the massive dereliction of duty that the Scottish Tories are guilty of, of the massive betrayal of the people of Scotland that we have come to this position is a result of that type of childish, pathetic behaviour. Murdo Fraser does not deserve to be treated as a serious politician. Fortunately, Scotland knows that he isn't. Annabelle Ewing, to be followed by James Kelly. The cabinet secretary spoke about the need for the UK Government to take the option of no deal off the table. Does he have any confidence that this message is actually getting through to the Prime Minister and her cabinet colleagues? We may have the opportunity to assess that tomorrow when there is a GMC meeting, but I have to say that this Prime Minister has shown herself incapable of listening to anybody but herself. It is quite extraordinary, actually. There was a piece, I think, written by Ryan Heath of Politico at the weekend, which pointed out a number of mistakes that the Prime Minister had made since the 2016 vote. The first of those was that anybody, any politician worth their salt, would realise that there were a number of competing interests, including Scotland that had voted against and Northern Ireland that had voted against, would have got the key players in the room and sat them down and said, look, how can we work together to find a way through this? How can we construct something that all of us will get something out of? There has not been any sign of that at all. Quite the reverse. Brexit means Brexit. She started off saying, and she is still saying it. I do not think that I have any confidence that she is listening, but we will go on talking, because it is absolutely essential that we speak up for the people of Scotland. James Kelly, to be followed by Ruth Maguire. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When Derek Mackay published the Government Straft Budget last week, he indicated that it would have to be revisited in the circumstances of anoddial Brexit. Given that budget contains £390 million of cuts to local councils, does the Government's assessment of anoddial Brexit mean further cuts to local councils, which will have dire consequences to local communities? We are working through the score mechanism, as I indicated, in partnership with COSLA, who is a member, and we have invited into the score mechanism to take part in this. In a way, that means that we will come to a common mind about what requires to be done. I am not going to enter into a debate about local authority figures simply to say that, I noticed this morning that in the figures issued that a garland bute had an increase of £9 million, which is very welcome speaking as a member for our garland bute, but I do think that it is important that COSLA's input to this is listened to, and it will be listened to. Ruth Maguire, followed by Jamie Greene. The cabinet secretary touched on communications or lack thereof, received from the UK Government. What detail has he or ministerial colleagues had regarding funding for Brexit planning, not least the recently announced £2 billion for anoddial Brexit? Has any information been provided as to how much Scotland is set to receive from this? I thank the member for that question. I noticed at lunch time today that the chancellor was apparently upgrading his colleagues for not having spent the £1.5 billion that he had already allocated to Brexit no deal planning. We have not had anything like a proportionate share of that money. We continue to argue the case for the sums that we require to have. We are expending money, and I have indicated in my statement that that process has already started. Derek Mackay is making representations to the chancellor and to the chief secretary and will continue to do so. However, it is vitally important that they recognise that we will require what we will require to do that job. We will go on trying to get it. Jamie Greene, followed by Stuart McMillan. Let us never forget that, on 18 September 2014, Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the United Kingdom, something that this Government seems to have forgotten throughout this complete narrative. Given that the EU has publicly stated that substantive changes to the deal already agree between the EU 27 and the UK are simply not on the table, and so says Mr Tusk, Mr Eunger, Radker, Murrachron and so on, what evidence does the minister base his view that anyone else will get a different or better deal? I will not even comment on the first point, which is utterly ridiculous and shows Tories yet again unable to front bench and unable to rise to occasion. However, the answer to the second point is very simple indeed. It has been made crystal clear during this entire process that what you get out is a product of what you put in. If you put in a series of impossible red lines, the members do not wish to listen to this, but I am going to say it, because it is really important and it is factually based. What happens is that if you set a series of red lines, you get the outcomes of those red lines. I would draw the member's attention—I am surprised that he has not seen it—to a slide produced by the Barnier task force, which has been reproduced twice in Scottish Government publications, which illustrates that by going through the various types of relationships with the EU, going through the EU relationship, going through the relationship of a trade treaty, going through the Ukraine Association and indicating that it is like a step, it indicates that the red lines produce the outcome. If the red lines change, if the inputs change, then the outcome changes. For example, the present red lines include ending freedom of movement. Apparently, I do not understand for the life of me how anybody can say that they are proud of that. That is a Tory position, but ending freedom of movement. If that is a red line, you cannot be in the EEA because the EEA arrangement includes the four freedoms, so that is a red line that produces an outcome. If you remove that red line, then you get a different outcome. That is simple. It is in actual fact EU Negotiations 101. I am surprised that Jamie Greene has not read it and has not seen the chart. I am not. Stuart McMillan is to be followed by Rhoda Grant. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice spoke about the no-deal cliff edge, which the Tories seem to think that that was quite humorous, but of the options that are there. Does the cabinet secretary believe that there is an option on the table for the UK Government not to be constrained by its own red lines and that the average date for leaving the EU is to seek an extension to article 50? It is absolutely clear, as a result, thanks to Mr Greer and his colleagues. Yet again, it is absolutely clear that article 50 now can be revoked by the UK or that an application could be made for article 50 to be extended. That is absolutely clear, and that is the right thing to do. That is a sensible thing to do now. I think that it is fairly clear that article 50 would be extended if the reason for that was either to hold a general election or to have a people's vote. I think that that would take place. That is there and on the table. Indeed, given the verdict of the European Court, it would be possible for them to revoke article 50 to have that and then to resubmit article 50. That is what the judgment says, the article 50 letter. I hope that they will do a bit of work on it first. I did not do any work on the first version. In those circumstances, it is perfectly possible to say, let us stop this now. What we would then do is, of course, to revert to existing terms, which would be something that I think would be tremendously welcomed throughout the country. Rhoda Grant will be filled by Runa Mackay. Can I ask which ports and routes the Scottish Government is looking at as alternatives to Dover? What boats are they hoping to procure, given that they cannot find boats to fulfil their own routes and services? Will they publish the Government's impact assessments so that agriculture and fishing industries can prepare? Grangemouth and Reciter are clearly the obvious two ports, and Transport Scotland is looking closely at those to assess whether there is additional capacity. I think that the member's assessment of ferries is not accurate of vessels. It may not be possible to source an alternative ferry for the west finals, so even I have questioned that. This is an entirely different type of vessel that you would require, a much commoner type of vessel that is available, and that will certainly be looked at. A great deal of work is being done. I am not going to start publishing a great deal of material, because it is far important that the work is done, but I have made it clear that I am absolutely open to answering questions, to giving information, to doing what we can, to make sure that people understand what is taking place. I think that publishing more material at this stage would not be helpful to anybody. Rona Mackay, to be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. Given that Scotland voted to remain in the EU, but it has been dragged out against our democratic wishes, does the cabinet secretary agree that the resources that the Scottish Government is investing would be better spent preparing Scotland for the future, not mitigating the damage that will be inflicted by a hard Tory Brexit? I think that one of the many great tragedies in this appalling situation is the time and effort and resource that is being absorbed into the whole Brexit process. No deal planning takes a great deal of that, and I have spent a lot of my time and a lot of officials' time and a lot of ministers' time on that and will continue to do so, but the whole thing is like a black hole that is sucking in energy and resource at a time when it could be far better expended elsewhere. That will be the judgment of history upon the Conservatives that they frittered away so much on something that was so pointless. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Everywhere you turn in Westminster, it is gripped by inertia. Whether that is in the inertia of Theresa May in postponing the meaningful vote or in Her Majesty's Opposition in refusing to use the supremacy of Parliament through a vote of no confidence in the Government, while we defer the decision, uncertainty reigns, planning for no deal Brexit has to happen, because until we have that meaningful vote, we cannot begin to game out the other scenarios, including a people's vote. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that we must force the Government to have the meaningful vote before Christmas, even if that means cancelling Christmas for our Westminster colleagues? I am sure that the member would not encourage me to play Scrooge. That would be very unlike me, I have to say. I am certainly not going to do that. However, I do think that it would be far, far better to have the meaningful vote this week or possibly even on Monday, on Christmas Eve. It would be far, far better to get to the stage that we were able to bring the issue of a people's vote to the House of Commons as early as possible in the new year. I agree with him on that, and I agree with him on something else. I have to say that I am really heartened to discover that Alec Cole-Hamilton now shares my own despair and disdain at Westminster. Welcome to the Nationalist Club. That concludes our statement on preparations for a new point of order, Mike Rumbles. I helpfully responded to two members saying that he will give information to those two members about how much the Government has spent on preparations for a no deal and what proportion of that is coming from the UK Government. Would it not be more appropriate for the minister to lay that for all MSPs to see through SPICE? I am sure that the minister noted the member's comments, and I am sure that the minister was intending to publish not just a single out of the two members who responded to, but the member's comments have been noted, although it is not a point of order. We will move on to a statement from Humza Yousaf on conduct reviews and inquiries. We will just take a few moments for the minister and members to change seats.