 Llywodraeth Cymru yn gweithio'r cwestiynau trafodol. Felly, rydyn ni'n gweithio'r next item of business, ystafell, by Michael Russell, o'r cwestiynau ar gweithio'r gweithio'r Llywodraeth Llywodraeth i Westminster. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so I would encourage all members who wish to ask a question to press their request to speak buttons now, and I call on the cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, the data at which the UK is scheduled to leave the EU is now just 38 days away. In terms of sitting days for this Parliament, that equates to 18, including today. Yet, Presiding Officer, there is still no resolution of the chaos that prevails at Westminster, no consensus about the way forward, no relief from the incompetence of the current UK Government, and still no respect for the decision of this country and this Parliament decisively against Brexit. Indeed, with every day that passes the unrealistic, irresponsible, and in terms of realisable outcomes, the Prime Minister's impossible approach only serves to heighten uncertainty for communities, citizens and businesses across Scotland to an intolerable degree and to increase the risk of a no-deal exit. The well-connected political website reported yesterday that, in European capitals, there is now mounting alarm that Theresa May has set Britain on course for a diplomatic disaster. It said that one minister from a major EU power was left so shocked after a meeting with the UK counterpart last week. It concluded that Britain is now hell-bent on pushing the crisis to the wire in the hope of a last-minute concession from EU leaders that will not materialise. Of course, the House of Commons had the opportunity last week to agree to an extension of article 50 to allow us to provide the economic damage of a no-deal or hard Brexit outcome. I pay tribute to those MPs who supported that SNP member, the Liberal Democrats, the Green MP, Plaid Cymru, to Torrey's 41 members of the Labour Party. Of the seven Scottish Labour MPs, three walked into the division lobbies to do what Scotland clearly wants. But all the Scottish Torrey's opposed it, showing yet again that, for a Scottish Tory parliamentarian, there is here the needs of their fractured and fractious party come a long way before the needs of their suffering country. Presiding Officer, this Scottish Government continues to believe that the best outcome for the UK as a whole and for Scotland is to remain within the EU. And that now, given the impasse that exists at Westminster, the best democratic way forward is to give the people the final choice. But we have over the past two and a half years been very clear about willingness to compromise, setting out credible and achievable positions in December 2016 and subsequently which were ignored or summarily dismissed by the UK Government. No doubt at some stage this afternoon the Tory benches will brazenly insist that the only way to avoid a no-deal is to support the Prime Minister's very bad deal. But surely even their certainty in that mantra must have been shaken a little this week, when no fewer than 40 senior retired diplomats signed a letter which pointed out just how awful the Prime Minister's deal actually is. Not only would that deal make Scotland poorer, removing us from the European single market, risking the fall in Scotland's working tax-paying population and putting us at a competitive disadvantage to Northern Ireland, it would also, in the words of those very knowledgeable diplomats, result in what they call a brexternity of endless uncertainty about our future for both citizens and businesses alike. And if there was ever to be an end to that brexternity, the best that could be hoped for at a far distant date, given the Prime Minister's red lines, would be some sort of free trade agreement, which our modelling indicates would mean that by 2030 our GDP would be around £9 billion lower than if we'd stayed in the EU, equivalent to £1,600 for every person in Scotland. And as things stand, even if the withdrawal agreement was approved by the UK and European parliaments, it's entirely possible, even probable, that no deal will only have been postponed rather than avoided. Such is the chaos that now in Galff's Westminster, it's impossible to say with any confidence that the terms of any future trade deal with the EU would finally be approved by MPs. Next week, the House of Commons will again get the opportunity to pass further judgment on the Prime Minister's efforts. We will continue to provide a voice for common sense. For Presiding Officer, a no deal outcome isn't inevitable, but alas, it is becoming more likely with every day that passes, and every attempt that the Prime Minister makes to bludgeon and frighten MPs into accepting her threadbare and damaging plan. So, as a responsible Government, we must act wherever we can to minimise and mitigate the impact in Scotland as far as we are able to do so. And in doing so, we must always be very straight with the people of Scotland. Later this week, my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, will publish a paper on the likely economic costs and impact of a no deal Brexit. It is vital that this chamber and Scotland knows that things will change and change very fast for the worse if a no deal is forced upon us. For example, a no deal Brexit could we estimate resulted in an increase in unemployment in Scotland of around 100,000 people, more than doubling the unemployment rate? We would go from a record low to a level not far off that at the depth of the last recession, with all the human cost which that would entail. Whatever we as a Government do and we will do everything we can, we simply could not avoid that sort of damage being done to our economy and our country. But one person could. The Prime Minister could, if she were to immediately agree an extension to article 50 and rule out with concrete legislative steps any no deal outcome. Getting such an extension would not be difficult. Indeed, President Juncker said yesterday, any decision to ask for more time lies with the UK. If such a request were to be made, no one in Europe would oppose it. So the only opposition to an extension lies within the House of Commons. The work of the Scottish Government resilience committee and the Scottish resilience partnership on planning, mitigation and preparing arrangements to respond to the risks and impacts of leaving the EU without a deal is continuing and intensifying, as the First Minister made clear last week after our special cabinet meeting. The resilience committee met in Glasgow last week, its ninth session, prior to that cabinet meeting and his meeting again tomorrow. I will be in London tomorrow attending yet another UK cabinet EU exit sub-committee and seeking firm answers to the many questions that we still have. For example, we do not yet know how much ferry capacity is available and what routes it will exist or exactly what priority goods will be carried. Nor do we know what priority will be accorded to each category of goods, nor what arrangements will be made to service Scottish requirements, including the particular challenges of rurality. We have also not yet heard whether export of foodstuffs can be integrated with special arrangements for import, consolidating inbound and outbound capacity to maximise the benefits. There are many more matters on which we need clarity and we will continue to seek that, given that such clarity is essential for our preparations. Yet leaving those difficulties aside, it has to be said that although we are working as closely as we can with the UK Government, even if there was a perfect information flow, we do not now believe that there is the time or the resource to ensure that absolutely everything required will be in the most effective place, in the most effective way, by the required dates. That is not a criticism of anyone working very hard on these matters north or south of the border. It is simply a fact of the shortness of the time available and the size of the task to be undertaken. Of course, there are those who seem to be seeking to normalise no deal, or with a profoundly concerning sense of misplaced optimism who are suggesting that its effects will somehow not be as serious as has been widely predicted. They are utterly wrong. It is clear, and it will be made even clearer in the chief economic advisers paper that will be published on Thursday that a no-deal Brexit remains a significant and live risk that would lead to a major dislocation to the Scottish economy. The impact of any shock is likely to vary across sectors, as well as regions according to their economic structure, and if prolonged, such a shock could lead to significant structural change in the economy. In addition to that, the uncertainty relating to Brexit is already impacting key economic indicators for Scotland, including consumer confidence and business investment. Let me, however, indicate what we are doing against the clock. Transport Scotland is working with providers and ports and airports in Scotland to assess existing capacity and identify how that capacity could help mitigate disruption to imports and exports. In trade, whilst the UK Government is currently negotiating with 40-plus trading partners in an attempt to roll over existing EU third country agreements, there is now no possibility that all or even a majority of those will be in place. Access to some markets will therefore be considerably disrupted. Nonetheless, we are working to secure as consistent and wide-ranging of food supply as possible and to enable improved or new supply chains to ensure that they get to every part of the country and to try and overcome barriers to export of food and drink as well. If free movement is curtailed, as seems very likely, that would have serious and immediate consequences in among other sectors that have health and social care workers. The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to doing all it can to speak up for and to support EU citizens, working in those roles and many others at this uncertain and anxious time. We passionately want relatives, friends, neighbours and colleagues who come from other EU countries to stay in Scotland. We have already committed £800,000 to Citizens Advice Scotland to provide advice and support to EU citizens in Scotland, affected by changes in the immigration rules as a result of Brexit. We will shortly intensify our information campaign to encourage EU nationals to stay. Presiding Officer, in my statement earlier this month, I urged MSPs to reach out to small businesses and their constituencies and encourage them to seek the information that they need on Brexit. It remains of concern that so many small businesses in particular have not yet engaged in sufficient detail planning and preparation. Undoubtedly, the tendency towards normalcy bias is well established in Scotland, but the UK Government is not functioning as a normal Government. It may well allow a no deal to come about either by accident or design, contrary to all norms of government. Accordingly, I would today strongly urge all businesses to seek out the information that we are providing through our Brexit website at www.mygov.scot or for the prepare for Brexit campaign, the one-door online approach jointly delivered by Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland, and to do it now whether you export or not. The chief constable, of course, recently announced plans to put 360 officers on standby from mid-March to deal with any incidents that may arise across the country, such as disruption at ports. That is just one more example of an initiative that seeks to align existing financial and staff resources to the challenges that we face in order to ensure that we have the right people and the right places with the right skills to respond quickly and effectively. We have been clear that any costs related to EU exit should not have a detrimental impact on Scotland's public finances and Derek Mackay again raised this matter with the chief secretary to the Treasury when they met last week, although no satisfactory response was forthcoming. We are actively pursuing the issue of funding for the consequences of a no-deal outcome with the UK Government along with a number of other matters, but it is abundantly clear that if Brexit is going to cost Scotland at every level of governments, in every business sector, in every part of the country, far more than the existing consequentials. Finally, let me turn to the important matter of our legislative preparations. To date, only 30 of the 114 UK SIs to which we have consented have completed their passage in the UK Parliament. I have made clear my concerns on this matter to the UK Government and have impressed upon them the importance of ensuring that the deficiency fixes to which we have given our consent are delivered. We are still on track to process both parts of the programme, UK SI notifications and Scottish SIs through the Scottish Parliament by the end of March, so our laws should be as ready as they can be for the shock of EU exit. However, the Prime Minister has now indicated in the event of an agreement being reached, she would intend to push through the withdrawal agreement bill before 29 March, as well as a range of other Brexit-related legislation. That could mean passing laws of the profoundest importance with consequence for all the devolution settlements in a few days. This cannot and should not be done. If that bill is presented to this chamber for a legislative consent, the Government will recommend that such consent be refused because of that impossible timetable and because the UK Government has moved not an inch on the issue of essential changes to the sewer process. Presiding Officer, let me conclude by reiterating the First Minister's message last week. The Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to preparing as best we can and to safeguarding the interests of businesses and communities in Scotland as far as possible. However, the way that this has been approached by the Prime Minister is reckless and irresponsible. It is now clear beyond any doubt that the Conservative Party and the UK Conservative Government pose a real danger to Scotland. The only sensible solution now available is a delay to article 50, a ruling out of a no deal and a people's vote. We will continue to press for those things with every legislative and political tool and every ounce of energy at our disposal. Thank you very much. The Cabinet Secretary will now take questions. Adam Tomkins will be filled by Neil Findlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Another week, another Mike Russell statement and another ever more repetitive account of the dangers of a no deal Brexit with no recognition whatever of the plain fact, Presiding Officer, that those who risk a no deal Brexit are those like Mike Russell and all his SNP colleagues who oppose the Prime Minister's deal. I do wonder, Presiding Officer, what the point is of Mr Russell's statement. What is he seeking to achieve? What indeed has he achieved in the two and a bit years since he returned to Government? His flagship continuity bill eviscerated by the Supreme Court. Three or is it now four iterations of Scotland's place in Europe doing nothing but gathering dust at the back of various filing cabinets. And so desperate is this Cabinet Secretary that today he's reduced to taking his lines from online news sources and websites, casting around to fuel his ongoing addiction to referendums, indeed his ongoing addiction to losing referendums. Meanwhile, Presiding Officer, in the real world, the Prime Minister is working harder than ever both across parties and with newly independent MPs and with our European partners to ensure that we leave the European Union with a deal. It is manifestly in no one's interests for us to leave without a deal. So when is the SNP going to grow up, quit the grandstanding and work with us together with your agreement that we can all support? Cabinet Secretary, I don't get much time to catch up on movies, unfortunately, but I am keen to see soon the Stan and Ollie movie, I have to say. And because in that sort of slapstick comedy there's always a moment in which one of the protagonists runs head first into a rake or a ladder or a wall, and that's how I feel about the questions from Adam Tomkins. He just gets up and runs straight into the wall because who's responsible for the mess that we're in? It is the Prime Minister. It is the Conservatives. But who has failed to back that deal? Who has failed to back that deal? The Conservative Party at Westminster. Who was she defeated by last week? The Conservative Party at Westminster. So I'm afraid the slapstick from Professor Tomkins is wearing a bit thin. Because the reality of this situation is the only repetitive nature is the flights, the backpacking flights that the Prime Minister takes to Europe again and again to be met with the same answer. The answer that came this morning, I have to say, from the European Union spokesperson who said, the EU will not reopen the withdrawal agreement. We cannot accept a time limit to the backstop of a unilateral or exit clause. Yet again, I have to say, the Prime Minister will fly to Brussels tomorrow and come back empty-handed. So it is time, it is time for the Conservatives to accept responsibility, both at London and here, and to recognise they are causing this disaster. They could avert it. But we've heard nothing yet from the Tories this afternoon the shows they are conscious of that. And Scotland will judge them harshly for it. Neil Findlay, to be told by Patrick Harvie. Mr Tomkins says he wonders what the point is of those statements. I have to say, I wonder what the point is of Adam Tomkins, someone who has gone through years of study, years of education, and that's the kind of statement that gives the Parliament utterly pathetic Mr Tomkins. We've got less than 40 days to go until the UK is supposed to leave the EU and we still have gridlock. The Prime Minister has desperately tried to bribe her own backbenchers and failed. She's tried to bribe MPs, representing former mining communities, and failed. As she's tried for the first time to meet trade union leaders, and again that has failed. Her red lines remain in place and the EU has rejected her wish to throw Ireland under her Brexit bus by Renegan on the backstop and they are right to do so because there must be no return to a hard border. And all the while businesses grow more nervous, workers fear for their jobs and the public grow ever more exasperated. Yes, there is anouncement by Honda at Swindon, while not exclusively about Brexit, undoubtedly, has a Brexit element to it. The issue of the backstop can be resolved with a permanent customs union. The EU want that, businesses want that and trade unions want that. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that that should be an immediate priority? And that would very lightly gain a majority in the House of Commons. Does he agree that close alignment and working with the single market is the best way to protect jobs and rights and ensure that there is no race to the bottom and that we should continue to work across Europe with agencies and institutions and areas such as research and development, education, environmental protection and our future security. Those are clear steps proposed by Labour that could be taken now and I believe build a majority in the UK Parliament and provide certainty for our people. Tory chaos has to come to an end with record defeats in Parliament, fortnightly humiliations and repeated rejection by EU leaders. It is time for the Prime Minister to end this chaos and admit that our Brexit plan has failed and to support Labour's robust and legally binding legally binding amendment next week that will prevent a no deal. Finally, will the cabinet secretary update Parliament on what work has been proceeding on common frameworks and on the redrafting of the intergovernmental agreements if the EWB proceeds? Before the cabinet secretary replies, cabinet secretary, one second. Just before the cabinet secretary replies, this is a very robust argument but could I ask all members to be refined from being so personal in their political attacks? Can I deal with the common frameworks and the intergovernmental issues? First, on common frameworks, as he will be aware, there was a publication 10 days ago between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations saying that work was continuing and significantly that no section 12 orders had yet been used. As long as the section 12 orders are not used, we will continue to work with the UK Government on a voluntary basis. However, the same proviso has existed in the last two publications. If section 12 orders are used, we will cease to do so. On the intergovernmental relationships, the UK Government is still doing nothing. We are trying to bring those forward. We are talking about issues that arise in there and we are just getting no response. However, they are rather busy messing everything else up, so maybe we should keep them away from the intergovernmental relationships for a period of time. On the customs union, can I say that I am pleased that the Labour Party is now in a position where it recognises the importance of the Norway or Norway Plus model, a model that is not dissimilar to the model that we were talking about in 2016? To that extent, I am happy to welcome the customs union issues, but I do think that the customs union on its own does not resolve the issue of Northern Ireland entirely, and that is an issue that would have to be addressed. There is also the issue of freedom of movement within the single market, which is crucial for Scotland, absolutely crucial for Scotland. And without freedom of movement, then we will have very considerable problems. But the customs union and the proper membership of the customs union I continue to support, but more is going to be required. What we are getting, however, from the Tories is no movement at all. The red lines, as Mr Finlay has rightly said, are excluding movement. Until those red lines change, we will stay in this impasse. Patrick Harvie, to be followed by Willie Rennie. Thank you, and I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of the statement. Those of us who support a people's vote are sometimes challenged that if the public are given the chance, finally, to cancel this mess, there will be a backlash and that it would drive people toward the far right. But isn't it clear that far right sentiment has been cultivated deliberately within the UK over decades of racist rhetoric and policy, and that far right sentiments have been deliberately cultivated and unleashed by the Brexit campaign, to such an extent that the far right threat is rising whatever the consequence of Brexit, whether they use a sense of betrayal and defeat or of triumphalism at the end of this process? So what discussions has the Scottish Government had, either within government or with Police Scotland, about the potential for the far right threat, the ways that we need to tackle it and the ways that we need to oppose the toxic values that underpin it? I think that I should ask my colleague the cabinet secretary for justice to respond in terms of detail of Police Scotland and the justice issues in there. But of course we would all agree that the rise of the far right and the encouragement of the far right comes not just from active encouragement but from passive encouragement. And it arises when the EU is misrepresented and when people do not stand up for the virtues of co-operation and working together as sovereign states within the EU. And that is the really crucial issue here. The people's vote will give people a chance, I would hope, to have a reconsideration, not just of what has taken place, but a new consideration of how this issue has developed and been presented over the last two and a half years. And the people who have walked away from their previous support for the EU, because they were told to do so by the Prime Minister and the Tory party, are hugely culpable, hugely culpable. And we have to recognise that and make that clear to them. Members of the Tory benches here are hugely culpable because not one of them has been prepared to stand up and to say that what is going on is utterly wrong and should not be allowed to continue. And I long for the day when I see a Conservative with the courage to do that in Scotland. Willie Rennie to be told by Ruth Maguire. The penultimate sentence of the minister's statement says, the only sensible solution now available is a delayed article 50, a ruling out of a no deal and a people's vote. I agree wholeheartedly with the minister. Seven MPs left the Labour Party yesterday because they feel so strongly in part about Europe. So what practical steps has the minister taken over the next few days and weeks to further build support for a people's vote so that we can get out of this mess? I am not going to get involved in the private grief of the Labour Party. I will leave that matter to others. But I can say that Westminster, our group, has shown itself to be very constructive on those matters. For example, the amendment that I acknowledged that the Liberal Democrats supported last week was a very positive amendment that actually said, let us immediately ensure that there is an extension. Indeed, it is obvious now from what one is hearing from the EU that the extension would happen. I have quoted President Junker on that. All that needs to happen now is that the Conservative Government needs to ask for that extension. They may well get an extension beyond three months. That is also quite clear that that atmosphere is changing and some of the fears about questioning the legitimacy of the European Parliament, if UK representatives were not seated, appear to be passing away. So that is there. I am working with our group at Westminster. I am sure that Mr Rennie is working with his group at Westminster to try and ensure that there is a broad support for the people's vote. It would of course be transformed if the Labour Party were to wholeheartedly support that, and I wish they would. And I have said that repeatedly in this chamber, constructively, and I go on saying it. Ruth Fogwar, to be followed by Donald Cameron. Presiding Officer, I note with a really heavy heart the cabinet secretary's warnings in his statement about the impact on Scotland's unemployment figures. Given what we have seen this past week from job losses to souring trade relations, will the cabinet secretary agree that that must act as a wake-up call for all members of this chamber, not least the tories, about the seriousness of the situation that we find ourselves in and the risk posed by Theresa May's approach to Brexit? Cabinet secretary. I would agree that unemployment is, of course, a major problem of the economy, but it is also a personal tragedy for every single person who experiences it. And in these circumstances, we should try everything we can to avoid those personal tragedies. Now, there is a way to do so. An extension of article 50 would find the first step at which confidence could be restored. But, of course, the warning about this matter has been there for a considerable period of time. The Japanese Government issued a letter in September 2016 to the UK Government, which made it absolutely clear what their attitude was and what the attitude of their companies would be to Brexit. The Prime Minister chose to ignore that letter. If you now look at that letter, and I read it again last night, if you now look at that letter, you realise that everything that the Japanese Government did not want to happen has happened and has been allowed to happen by the Conservatives. It is therefore a little wonder that they are now saying, circumstances have changed, we cannot continue with the investments that we've had. But widely businesses are now saying they cannot cope with this. The CBI, the NFU in England today, whole ranges of businesses saying that it is impossible to live with. And still, the Conservatives do nothing. And still, they pursue the Schimera in Brussels, where the Prime Minister rushing back across to negotiate something that is not negotiable. And in these circumstances, the Prime Minister needs to wake up, to actually recognise that this is her responsibility. And, you know, first of all, to resign. That would be the most youthful thing that she could do. But if she's not going to resign, then the next thing she needs to do is to get that extension of article 50 to make sure that there is a circumstance that is put in place so that there can be no deal and then to have a people's vote, vote. Then she can resign. Donald Cameron to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you. The Scottish Government has previously conceded that there are circumstances where this Parliament will consent to Brexit-related UK primary legislations, such as the healthcare arrangements bill. Does the cabinet secretary accept that there may be scenarios in the next few months where a similar situation may occur and that it will be in a national interest for this Parliament to consent to UK Government Brexit legislation? Not entirely sure that Mr Cameron and I would agree on the definition of the national interest, but let that pass. I do agree with Mr Cameron that there may be circumstances in which it is the right thing to bring forward partial or complete legislative consent motions. We did it in the healthcare arrangements bill because I think it was utterly wrong. Although, in the end, I don't think that individuals would have suffered. There was a potential for individuals and vulnerable individuals to suffer. I think that it was the right thing for this Government to say that we will make an exception in this case. What we are not going to be done is to be bludgeoned, bullied or frightened into doing the wrong thing. As I was delivering my statement, some people may not have heard and microphones may not have picked it up, but Mr Tomkin spent his time shouting remarks about voting for the Prime Minister's deal. That would be the utterly wrong thing to do. To give legislative consent to a withdrawal bill that is the utterly wrong thing will not happen. I certainly will recommend to the chamber that that does not happen, but I do not want people to suffer individually in the healthcare bill. If there are circumstances in which that is the case, I hope that I will make the right decision on that. I respect Mr Cameron for raising it. Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you, Presiding Officer. With the increased likelihood of a no-deal Brexit following last week's vote, can the Scottish Government say what clarity it has had from the UK Government on post-Brexit funding? Especially funding to replace current EU funding that supports jobs, infrastructure, research and also sustaining our rural communities? There is no clarity on replacement funding. There are some guarantees in place in terms of continuation funding, for example, in the agriculture sector, but those are limited and the closer you look at them, the more insubstantial they become. So what we have tried to do is to make it clear that where those guarantees exist, we will honour them by providing funding to one of them, but in the wider issues, there are no such guarantees. That is very concerning. For example, infrastructure funding, which would be of enormous importance to the Highlands and Islands, has dried up completely. Money availability from the European Investment Bank has dried up completely. If you look at the potential for new schemes and the so-called shared prosperity fund, which is a regional fund that is going to be run from London, which seems a bit of a contradiction. We know virtually nothing about how that will actually operate. There was meant to be a consultation on it at the end of last year. It hasn't taken place. So we would like to know what the proposals are. Even better, we'd like to be part of the discussion as to how those things should move forward. But we simply do not get the answers in those circumstances. Jamie Greene, to be followed by Keith Brown. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Cabinet Secretary made a statement saying that it remains of concern to him that so many small businesses have not yet engaged in sufficient Brexit planning. Can I ask if he has a sense of the scale of how many businesses have not yet engaged in any form of preparedness, why he thinks that that might be given the prominence of Brexit in politics at the moment, and what he feels that both he and his Government, but all of us as MSPs, could do to better signpost their own local businesses towards some of that excellent joint agency resource that is available to them, including some of the many excellent events that they are hosting right across Scotland? Cabinet Secretary. I say anything that each individual member should know their own constituencies or regions, should know how to contact small businesses, should be in the local newspapers encouraging that to happen. As for an estimate of number of businesses, I really would have to rely on, for example, a chancellor who has indicated that vast numbers of small businesses have not yet taken this up. I think that the experience is true across these islands regrettably. And I think that that is, for a number of reasons, I indicated normal say bias. People do not believe that the Government could be as incompetent as the Tory Government is, and they are now waking up to the fact that it could be as incompetent as that. But if members have the ability to talk to others and to talk to small businesses, please use it and make sure that they use the resources that are available. Keith Brown to be followed by James Kelly. Access to European structural and social funds has been a very important source of additional resources for my constituency. Indeed, since the Thatcher government in the 80s slashed regional aid to the north of England, Scotland and Wales. For example, the club manager has helped to support economic development, job creation and trading to the tune of £1.13 million since 2014. Can the cabinet secretary therefore provide any update as to whether that vital funding in my constituency will be continued after Brexit? And advise, and I think that I know the answer to this, if the UK Government has provided any information, given that we've only got 38 days to go, as to whether the shared prosperity fund will replace those resources. The second part is no. We have no such information but I think that the member is absolutely right to stress the importance of those funds. In the current 2014-2020 programme, there's already been £480 million committed to projects across Scotland. I would just ask members to think of the circumstances in which, let's say, in the next six years, £480 million was abstracted from the Scottish economy because there was money not available to do so. So I think that we are in a very serious situation. I know that member speaks for his constituency, which has received £1.13 million in that programme. There are many constituencies who have actually received more. It is vital that we know what is happening, but we have heard no more about it largely going to the complete chaos in the Westminster Government. James Kelly to be followed by Angela Constance. Thank you. The cabinet secretary has outlined how the Government has made representations to the UK Government in relation to funding required to meet the costs of EU exit. If the full costs of that funding are not met by the UK Government, what contingency planning has the Scottish Government put in place to deal with that scenario? Cabinet secretary. The member raises an important point, I have to say. The Scottish Government is very limited in its ability to produce new resources. If money is not provided, then it becomes a choice of whether we are able to spend it or we are not able to spend it. In the second instance of a no-deal Brexit, I think that we would feel an imperative to do everything that we possibly could, but we could find ourselves very short of resources to do so. That is why my colleague, the cabinet secretary for finances, is pushing this issue with the chief secretary to the Treasury, amongst others. There needs to be that sort of commitment, but that commitment has not been entered into. I think that this will be sort of a time issue. We will have to continue to spend money to do the things that we need to do. Will we find ourselves in those circumstances and continue to pressure the UK Government? The UK Government did indicate that in the event of a no-deal, there would be a supplementary budget. We would be very clear that we would require to have a substantial resource made available within that supplementary budget to do the jobs that we had to do. Angela Constance to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, Patterson are an award-winning food and drink company and employ 200 people providing much needed employment in my constituency. They have written to me in detail about their concerns, about the, I quote, catastrophic consequences of Brexit, given the impact on their cost-based supply chain, delays at ports, etc. Therefore, will Mr Russell and or Mr Ewing visit Patterson Arran to discuss their concerns and what more can be done to support the small but key manufacturer in our food and drink industry? Cabinet Secretary. I'm sure Mr Ewing would be happy to visit and so would I. I mean, the origins of this company are fascinating and it's a company that's been in existence for, in its earliest incarnations, for over 100 years. I think it was founded in 1896, the Patterson part of it. It is world-renowned for its shortbread, for its oat cakes, and the Arran brand, of course, in terms of preserves and chutneys. And it will present an enormous problem if this chain of export and production is interrupted. So, Mr Ewing, who is, he tells me, undertaking a food resilience teleconference within 10 minutes, will, I'm sure, come back to you about visiting and I'd be happy to do so as well and to, might I suggest, sample the oat cakes. Rachael Hamilton to be full by Jane Gleith. Thank you. The UK Government gave Derek Mackay 92 million in funding to prepare for leaving the EU. In England, the funding was passed on to local authorities. In Scotland, it was not. Why not? Cabinet Secretary. Well, I'm sorry, I dispute that account. I know that some people have said that. I dispute that. I have met with COSLA, I continue to meet with COSLA. I'll be seeing COSLA again later this week. We recognise that they will have a requirement for funding and in these circumstances we will work with COSLA to make sure that funding flows from the UK Government. And of course, one of the differences in this and Rachael Hamilton just needs to think about this for a moment, there is a direct line from the UK Government to local authorities, but in Scotland there is a direct line from the UK Government to the Scottish Government. And if they want to have a direct line to local authorities, well, that's a discussion to have, but the routes for money are different. We will ensure that we assist the local government as much as we can, but I do think, Presiding Officer, that it is very rich for a Tory to criticise lack of funding to local government given A, their attitude to the budget in this place and secondly, their attitude to Brexit, particularly from a Brexiteer, an original Brexiteer, I believe. Right, Rachael Hamilton, oh, are you a born, is she a born again Brexiteer? Did you originally espouse Brexiteer or has she come to Brexit new form? Whatever it is, it's pretty rich anyway. Jenny Gilruth to be followed by Joan McAlpine. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Has the Scottish Government considered commissioning an equality's impact assessment on the UK Government's settled status fee given that the payment of £65 for those over 16, which, whilst now refundable, remains in place and that people are being forced to travel from places like Glynrothus in my constituency to Edinburgh to register for the scheme at personal cost. Cabinet Secretary, I understand that the travelling is required for document upload if the app does not upload documents and that is unacceptable and the technological history of this matter is pretty sad one. In terms of the fee, I'm very glad that the fee has now disappeared. It is an extraordinary thing for a Government to say, here's a fee, you're going to pay it, and then to celebrate when they actually abolished a fee themselves. It is quite extraordinary, but I'm glad it's gone, but even so, it should never have come in the first place, there's a wider issue round us, which is how do we say to EU nationals we need you here? It's not a question simply of being nice to people, the Scottish economy needs the presence of EU nationals. People have chosen to make their home here and I want to hear that from the Conservative benches. I don't want to hear Brexit from the Conservative benches. There's lots of people doing that. I want to hear them saying stay to the EU nationals instead of pandering, instead of pandering, to the hard right within their party, which is all that they're presently doing. Joan McAlpine Thank you. The Tory defence secretary, Gavin Williams, in cause great offence when he suggested a post-Brexit Britain would use lethal force and threaten to park a new aircraft carrier in China's backyard. The Financial Times reports that this has resulted in UK trade talks in Beijing being cancelled. What effect does the cabinet secretary believe Mr Williams in speech has had on Scotland's trading relationship with China? Gabor Seger Well, if anybody is listening from Beijing or elsewhere, I would want them to know that the Scottish Parliament has no interest in supporting Gavin Williamson. He is a comic opera figure. He is the private pike of the UK Government and his speech was nonsensical. It also used words that weren't in the English language but it is completely nonsensical. For a speech to have that effect, it shows that we are dealing with people who have no sense of how a Government should operate. The real tragedy, Presiding Officers, as I am saying that, there are words of support for Gavin Williamson coming from the Tory benches. They are so out of touch with what is happening, not just in Scotland, not just in the UK but in the world, that really it is time they step back. And as my old granny said, take a jump to themselves. Thank you very much and that concludes our statement this afternoon, and we are going to move on shortly to our next item of business, which will be a debate on motion 15879 in the name of Derek Mackay on the Scottish rate resolution. We will just take a few moments, a few seconds, a few moments anyway for the minister and members to change seats.