 We resume business this afternoon with portfolio questions on government, business and constitutional relations. Question number one from Linda Fabiani. Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government when it last held discussions with the Prime Minister. Cabinet Secretary Michael Russell. The First Minister spoke to the Prime Minister by phone on Tuesday afternoon and the First Minister reinforced the Scottish Government position that article 50 should be extended to allow time for a second EU referendum. Linda Fabiani. Thank you very much Cabinet Secretary for that answer. It is certainly the case, Presiding Officer, that a lot has happened even since Tuesday. Can the Cabinet Secretary tell me when it is likely that there will be a further discussion with the Prime Minister about Scotland's future, whether he believes that the Prime Minister is in fact in control of events and listening to the increasing calls for an extension to article 50? I have to say that I see no sign that the Prime Minister is listening. She is not even listening to her own party, which is voting against her. I think that this is a tragedy in terms of where this issue has gone. We are now within a fortnight of the expected date of Brexit and there is no agreement and little sign of one. I think that there is also a real democratic issue in a Prime Minister who keeps coming back to the House of Commons with the same issue. That is wearing people down. That is a Government by attrition. It is not democracy. In all those circumstances, I would be happy, as I am sure the First Minister would, to enter into substantive and meaningful discussion with the Prime Minister about how she might change the position that she is in, change her red lines. This should have happened months, some might say, years ago. It has not happened. I do not think that the Prime Minister is a type of person who can make it happen now. To ask the Scottish Government what response it has received from the UK Government to the simultaneous debates of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly that voted to reject the withdrawal agreement and an ordeal Brexit. I have to say that we have received no response from the UK Government. It is not even clear, after the various fiasgos of last night in the House of Commons, including the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister yet again voting against what she had proposed, if it is not clear if there is an agreed UK Government position. That is an absolutely extraordinary situation, with, as I say, a little more than two weeks to go before the UK is due to leave the European Union. The views of both this Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have consistently been ignored throughout the Brexit process. Of course, large sections of Northern Irish opinion have also been ignored because of the way in which the Prime Minister has put herself in hawk to the DUP. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is still trying to deliberately run down the clock to a deeply damaging exit from the EU, but we will do everything we can to prevent that disaster. Clare Adamson. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer, and I share his frustration that a handful of DUP MPs have more sway over the future of the UK countries than the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, and indeed the First Minister and the Parliament have been ignored in this. Does that not demonstrate the need for Scotland to go its own way as an independent country? I do recall the very wise observations of the late and great Donnie Stewart MP, the MP for the West Niles and former president of the SNP, when he observed that if the people of Scotland each got an opportunity to spend 30 minutes in the gallery of the House of Commons, they would be in no doubt about voting for independence. We have seen repeatedly, again and again, in the Commons how chaotic their system is and how chaotically they are led or not led, frankly, by a Prime Minister who is a Prime Minister in name only. Part of that has been, as I have said, to put herself and her Government in hawk to extremists, but to the DUP and particularly to the European research group. These are people who will never be satisfied. They won't be satisfied with any resolution, and they certainly won't be satisfied until they have got their own destructive way for their own destructive ends. The Prime Minister has repeatedly been told by many people, including by the Scottish Government, that she should have been talking constructively to others. She has chosen instead to pander to the worst elements in her party, and the consequences are there for everyone to see. Neil Findlay is very disappointed that the UK Government has not responded to the joint work that we did in this session with the Welsh Assembly. I am pleased that the Government did engage in that initiative, and I hope that we will work closely with our colleagues in Wales on other issues, as well as continue to work with them in Brexit. Will the cabinet secretary have a word in the air of the First Minister and ask her to stop using the Government of Wales as one of her regular diversionary shields when she is in trouble at question time, when, in fact, we should be learning from the Government of Wales that is doing some tremendous work? I have to say that my engagement with the Government of Wales is on the business of Brexit, and I have made it absolutely clear that that has been a constructive engagement and continues to be a constructive engagement. It does not prevent the Government of Wales or the First Minister of Wales criticising the SNP, as I indeed believe happened at the weekend, at the Labour Party conference, nor does it inhibit the First Minister and others criticising the Government of Wales. On this issue, and I think that it is important to say this, we have worked very constructively with that Government as we have worked constructively with Mr Finlay and Labour Party in Scotland. Our aim is the same. I would hope that the Labour Party would endorse and push for, publicly, a second referendum. That will help enormously, but we have worked well together and I hope that we will continue to do so on this issue. I should first of all say that question number three and question number eight are going to be grouped together. Question number three, Jackie Baillie. To ask the Scottish Government how much of the £55 million that received in Barnett consequentials for 2019-20 to prepare for leaving the EU has been allocated and to what? Minister Graham Day. The £55 million has been distributed in its entirety across multiple portfolios. Particular consideration has been given to the areas that will be heavily affected by Brexit, namely the economy, transport, food and drink, medicines, agriculture and the rural economy. Those portfolios are responsible for managing their preparations within their total budget. Jackie Baillie. I am very pleased to hear the minister's response, but last year's budget, he will be aware, also included £37 million for the effects of Brexit, but I understand that only £27 million of that money was spent. None of that money went to Police Scotland and I indeed did not hear any mention of them in his current list. The minister will be aware that Police Scotland are reporting that there will be a significant risk if additional funding is not secured to provide for the recruitment of new officers to deal with some of the consequences of Brexit. The £55 million has been allocated on the basis of civil contingencies in the event of a no-deal scenario. Can I ask the minister, firstly, whether the money is contingent on there being no deal or whether we can keep it anyway, which would be helpful? Secondly, whether he will urgently consider making an allocation from that amount to Police Scotland? Let me try to cover that as best I can. Of the £37 million, £27 million was allocated to specific Brexit-related activity in the Scottish Government and its agencies, with the remaining £10 million being spent by portfolios as part of the overall budget settlement. All portfolio areas have benefited from all of the EU consequences being allocated via the budget. I have to say that none of the Scottish Government 2018-19 or 2019-20 EU consequences arose as a result of increased UK Government spending on policing. However, of course, as with all other public bodies, dial continues with Police Scotland. 8. Kezia Dugdale To ask the Scottish Government how much it is received from the UK Government to prepare for Brexit and how much of that has been spent. Minister Grounday. As I have mentioned earlier, there was a sum from last year. There is a sum of £55 million this year, and all of these sums have been or are being allocated. Kezia Dugdale I am grateful to the minister for that answer. The chief executive of Morrison's reported a 7 per cent increase in the purchase of basic medicines in toilet paper yesterday. Tesco's and Mark's and Spencer's have also increased their orders of tin goods. Can I ask the minister whether he is stockpiling anything ahead of Brexit and what the Government's advice to consumers is ahead of leaving the EU? Should they take steps to stockpile the basics or not? Minister. As a responsible Government, we would not be advising people to stockpile, but what we are doing is putting considerable work into assessing the challenges that will be faced as a consequence of Brexit, particularly a no-deal Brexit, if that is where we end up. There is considerable work going on through the SCOR Committee in conjunction with local authorities, for example. It is covering the full range of priorities that we would face. For example, we have covered the issue of access to boilers, for example. Medicines are part of that consideration. I would assure the member that a great deal of work is going on to prepare Scotland insofar as we can for the consequences of Brexit, and we will continue to do that. Tom Arthur. In his answer to Kezia Dugdale, the minister stated that £55 million had been made available this year from the UK Government. Can the minister set out his views on how that amount compares to the loss of economic funding and the consequent economic damage that Scotland will face that has been dragged out of the European Union against it? It is a drop in the ocean compared with the impact that Scotland is facing as a consequence of leaving the EU. It is an impact that is being felt right across the board, the Scottish Government directly, local authorities, a multiple number of public bodies and, of course, the private sector. That is a very small proportion of what would be required to mitigate the impact of Brexit far better that we could find a way to avoid it completely. David Torrance. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment has made of the impact that Brexit will have on third sector funding. EU funding benefits Scotland's third sector very significantly. As a result of the UK Government's chosen route for exiting the EU, we will lose access to almost all of that. As yet, the UK Government has failed to provide any real detail on future funding arrangements. Scotland's third sector has told us that, in particular, the loss of structural funds without consultation and whether a clear replacement is of grave concern, the UK Government Committee to consult a shared prosperity fund by the end of 2018 is disappointing that it has not been forthcoming and there has been no update to the devolved administrations. On 5 February, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government wrote to the UK Government to seek an urgent update and reassurance that the concerns of Scotland's third sector will be properly considered. We await a response. David Torrance. I thank the minister for that answer. A number of groups within my constituency have benefitted over a year from EU funding, such as Fife Coast and Current Side Trust. The contributions made by those groups cannot be overstated, but the support to our communities is under serious threat. What assurances can the minister give to third sector organisations all across Scotland that now have grave concerns about their future? The reality is that we cannot offer any guarantees because we are dependent on the UK Government. Should the withdrawal agreement be agreed in full, Scotland will continue to benefit from programmes and funding covered by the multi-annual financial framework, as it would if the UK continued to be a member state, at least until the end of this budget in December 2020. In the event of a no deal, the UK Government has given guarantees to replacing EU funding with UK finance. We have committed to passing those guarantees on in full, provided that we are given the means to do so, and we will continue to press the UK Government on how those will operate in practice. As I said earlier, it is deeply disappointing that the UK Government has yet to provide any further clarity on future arrangements for EU funding and proposals made so far to provide no certainty for the future, and the shared prosperity fund situation is particularly concerning. However, it is crucial that the UK Government urgently firms up the commitment to replacing all funding streams in full, and that we receive our fair share of that to ensure that the decisions can be taken in the best interests of Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government how its plans for a future independence referendum have been informed by the Sustainable Growth Commission. The case for independence has been informed by the way Scotland's interests have been consistently ignored and sidelined by successive Westminster Governments, particularly during the whole disastrous Brexit process. Anonymous UK Government Minister recently told the BBC that there should not be another independence referendum because, in his or her words, once she has hit the iceberg, you are all on it together. The growth commission was set up by the SNP, not the Scottish Government, but the evidence that it presented shows that, rather than hitting the iceberg, as James Kelly seems to prefer, Scotland can prosper as an independent country with the full powers of independence. The First Minister has made clear that the Scottish Government will set out its views on a future independence referendum when the position on Brexit is clearer. We believe that Scotland's future should be in Scotland's hands, not under the control of Westminster Governments, people in Scotland did not elect. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Is it not the case that the SNP growth commission, or should I say the SNP cuts commission, sets out a position where there will be year on year of cuts and uncertainty around currency? That will pile agony on to local communities in terms of cuts and inequality. Therefore, would the cabinet secretary not accept that the Government would be better explicitly ruling out another independence referendum and concentrating on the important issues for the country, such as providing proper public services, tackling inequality and ensuring jobs and growth in the economy? Of course, that is what the Scottish Government has been concentrating on and will continue to concentrate on because we are very focused on making Scotland a better place to live and to clearing up the mess made by successive Westminster Governments' Tory and Labour, of course. I want to address the issue of what the growth commission said. The growth commission did not say what Mr Kelly suggested. There have been years of cuts, years of austerity, years of confusion. They have been brought about by the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats refusing to back independence in 2014. The recipe for continued chaos, confusion and cuts—this is absolutely clear—is to continue to vote for either Labour, Conservative or Liberal. That is what will bring out the cuts. What will bring out prosperity and a better future is to choose the normality, the international normality of independence. Neil Findlay. In some of his previous writings on those subjects, the cabinet secretary did not argue for independence. He argued for a new union, as I recall, and he also argued for educational vouchers, privatisation of the NHS and the privatisation of his civil service. Could he also remind us which currency he wanted in those days? I do not really love Mr Findlay's attempts. I really love his two things. His attempts to continue to misrepresent something that he has only read once. Secondly, the fact that nothing changes year after year, decade after decade, Mr Findlay may go on talking about the same old things in the same old way, and cheered on by the Conservatives, which is very significant, of course. This is the better together alliance back again. The reality is, first of all, I refer Mr Findlay to my regular answers on this point. I am fascinated that he still is interested in my careers as an author. Secondly, I refer him to the reality of Scotland today. The reality of Scotland today created by his failure, the Labour Party's failure, the Tories' failure, first of all in Government at Westminster and, secondly, their refusal to back the international normality of independence. Adam Tomkins. In the light of that answer, what is this week's plan for a currency for an independent Scotland, and how is it different from last week's plan? Cabinet Secretary. I really think that the Tories are on rather dodgy ground about changed plans. How absolutely extraordinary those people who saw last night's farce being played out on television of a Government that could not decide whether to vote against its own policy or not would regard what we have just heard from Professor Tomkins as a diversionary tactic. The policy of the Scottish Government is to have a modern, prosperous, independent Scotland. Scotland cannot be modern and prosperous when it is dragged out of the EU against its will and dragged backwards by either the Conservatives or Labour. Question 6, Alexander Burnett. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I can ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of a European Union legal continuity Scotland bill. The Supreme Court's positive decision in the reference of the continuity bill has significant implications for the devolution settlement in Scotland. I have held discussions on the consequences of this judgment with representatives of parties right across the chamber on a number of occasions. I am grateful for their input. A further discussion is planned next week. I hope that a consensus can be achieved, which would allow us to make a decision on how to proceed, which, of course, I would bring to this chamber. Alexander Burnett. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the impartial and independent UK Supreme Court struck down the most contentious portions of his bill, a situation caused by the Scottish Government's misuse of emergency legislation powers to force through this legislation. Has the cabinet secretary taken any lessons on using those powers more sparingly and judiciously in the future? I would recommend that the member reads the judgment, not the opinion of the judgment of Professor Tomkins. Those are two very different documents. One of them is grounded in constitutional law. In fact, that is the judgment of the Supreme Court. One of them is grounded in political prejudice, that is the one from Professor Tomkins. It is up to him whether he does that or does not enhance his reputation, I have to say, in the academic world, as I know from comments that I have received from many people, because the reality of the situation is that the Supreme Court was utterly clear about the position. In one very small part of the bill, I am trying to explain this even to Professor Tomkins, who seems keen to shout rather than to listen. In one very small part of the bill, there was an exception made. As far as the judgment was concerned, Mr Burnett does not seem to have read the judgment, so let me tell him this, as far as the rest of the judgment was concerned, the court was absolutely clear that the difference that was made was by the passage of a bill by the UK Government after this chamber had approved the continuity bill. I do not know whether they used that word in the grand surroundings of Aberdeenshire. We call that pookling. That was pookled by the UK Tory Government and the member should be ashamed of that fact rather than shaking his head and grinning. The thing to grin about in that is, unfortunately, that Scotland was cheated of its bill by pookling by the UK Tory Government. Annie Wells To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to publish an up-to-date timetable for the introduction of legislation, including in its programme for government. Mr Graham Day Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government is committed to introducing all of the bills in the current programme for government ahead of the announcement of our next programme. The timetabling of new bills and those already in the Parliament is being impacted, of course, by the unwelcome requirement to develop resources to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. Individual bill timetables are therefore subject to continual review, and I am discussing this with the relevant committee's conveners on a regular basis. I want to take this opportunity to recognise the work of the committees of this Parliament who have responded superbly to the challenges that have been set by this Parliament by Brexit. Annie Wells I thank the minister for his answer. However, only a third of the bills announced in the 2017 programme for government had progressed beyond stage 1 in 2017. Can I get the Scottish Government to commit to doing better on their record this coming year? Well, let's deal with reality here. The bills are currently going through the Parliament that we expect to reach stage 3 by the end of 2019. Damages bill, age of criminal responsibility, health and care, human tissue, management of offenders, vulnerable witnesses, fuel poverty, census, south of Scotland enterprise, planning bill, climate change bill, transport bill. Then we move on to the remaining year, three bills that we anticipate being brought to this Parliament before the summer. Those bills will be non-domestic rates, disclosure, female genital mutilation, biometric data, consumer protection, electoral reform, electoral franchise and family law. Proof, what it needed, that this is a government getting on with the day draw, compared with contrast. Thank you very much. That concludes portfolio questions. We are going to move on to the next item of business, which is a statement by Richard Lockhead on update on the impact of Brexit on the Scottish further and higher education sectors. I would encourage any member who wishes to ask a question off the minister to press their request sweet buttons as soon as they can.