 Maen nhw'n gwybod? The first item of business today is a statement by Michael Russell on Brexit, preparations in the light of recent developments. I would encourage all members who wish to ask a question of the cabinet secretary to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible. I call on Michael Russell. The Presiding Officer After today, there are only 19 sitting days in this Parliament before the UK is due to leave the EU. Meeting the legitative pressures of a possible no-deal Brexit has has been challenging. I acknowledge the flexibility and diligence that this Parliament, its committees and its conveners have demonstrated in carrying out that role. However, it is clear that there is a substantial backlog of Brexit legislation at Westminster and, to date, only a 73 of the 115 UK statutory instruments to which we have consented have actually been laid in the UK Parliament. No one I have spoken to in recent weeks, with the exception of the Prime Minister, believes that Westminster can complete the work that it has to finish on Brexit preparations in the time available. Accordingly, the Scottish Government believes that it is essential that two things happen at the earliest possible date. Firstly, the Prime Minister must seek an extension to the article 50 process no matter what other task she has set herself. That is essential, even in legislative, let alone economic and political terms. Secondly, she or the House of Commons must take formal legal steps to rule out a no deal that would reduce the pressure on businesses and individuals, as well as on the parliaments of those islands. In December last year, the Parliament voted decisively against the Prime Minister's EU withdrawal deal and for very good reasons. The Prime Minister's deal would make Scotland poorer, places us at a serious competitive disadvantage and, combined with the UK Government's hostile immigration policy, would make a fall in Scotland's working tax-paying population inevitable. In addition, the proposed deal provides no certainty. It will mean years of difficult negotiations, with no guarantee that a trade deal can, in the end, be achieved. Last week, the Prime Minister seemed to agree with us, incredibly voting against her own deal, by backing the Brady amendments, seeking alternatives to the backstop. A backstop that she negotiated and an alternative that she and her colleagues, including the ever-flexible Secretary of State for Scotland, said just two weeks ago, did not exist. They still don't exist. The Prime Minister's deal is not the solution to this problem, it is the problem. It represents the inevitable outcome of ill-conceived red lines, and it is those red lines that need to change. Alternatives are possible. In fact, they are absolutely essential, and they are available. In 2016, the Scottish Government set out compromise plans that would keep both Scotland and the UK in the single market. Now, with the clock ticking down to exit day, the Scottish Government is working with others to try and obtain an extension to article 50, to avoid a catastrophic no-deal outcome, and to allow time for a second referendum on EU membership. However, as a responsible Government, we must also act to minimise and mitigate the impact of a possible no-deal outcome in Scotland. We will do everything we can in that regard, although I repeat the caveat that I added when I last updated the chamber about this matter. We cannot do everything. Extensive preparation has been under way for some time, but in the first weeks of this year, we have been steadily intensifying the work. Under the leadership of the Deputy First Minister, reporting to the First Minister, the Scottish Government's Resilience Committee continues to provide a clear, co-ordinating structure with COSLA, civil contingencies responders and Police Scotland participating in these arrangements alongside senior civil servants and cabinet secretaries. It will meet again later today and next week during recess. Cabinet will also meet during recess to hear a further update, as we are now preparing for the potential need to operate those arrangements on a permanent basis in the event of a no-deal outcome and to activate public communications. I have also attended two special UK Government ministerial meetings in recent weeks that have considered no-deal planning. We continue to engage on those matters with the UK Government at the highest levels. The Deputy First Minister will attend another UK Cabinet sub-committee on EU exit on Monday. The Scottish Resilience Partnership is co-ordinating work across Scotland to ensure that local resilience partnerships are fully engaged in planning, mitigation and preparing arrangements to respond to any of the civil contingency issues arising out of EU exit. A national EU exit civil contingencies plan is being developed on a multi-agency basis and will be tested and exercised shortly. A no-deal Brexit has the potential to generate a significant economic shock that could tip the Scottish economy into recession and potentially into a deep recession. It would also have a severe impact on the labour market, resulting in potential job losses, business relocations and closures under employment and a reduction in recruitment. The SAME sector is likely to be the worst hit. Alongside the UK Government, we are trying to rectify that, and we would support measures to ensure that there is increased liquidity in the banking system should it be required. As part of our support for business, the Prepare for Brexit campaign offers practical advice, which can help to safeguard as much as possible in those circumstances a company's own growth and that of the Scottish economy. On transport, it remains our aim to try and secure the best flow of essential goods to Scotland. We are concerned at the possibility of severe delays to freight traffic through Dover and the Channel tunnel. We are working with the Department of Transport to establish the extent to which its contingency plans are addressing Scotland's needs for critical goods, and in particular how rurality can be factored into supply chains. Given my constituency experience, I am especially conscious of the position of the Scottish Islands, and I discussed some of those matters when in Orkney earlier this week. Transport Scotland is also working with transport providers and ports and airports in Scotland to assess their existing capacity and identify how they could help to mitigate disruption and ensure that Scotland's exporters can continue to get their goods to market. Uncertainty about future tariff arrangements provides another key demonstration of the potentially damaging consequences of a no deal. Studies by the British Retail Consortium and others suggest that, in the absence of a trade agreement between the UK and the EU, reversion to WTO tariffs for imports and exports could lead to significant price increases, particularly for food and drink. The Government of the Bank of England has identified potential rises of between 5 and 10 per cent. Our red meat industry and seafood sector will be severely impacted by punitive tariffs. The seafood sector will also be required to comply with a range of additional administrative burdens for which the support for which does not presently exist. We are also seeking urgent clarity and updated UK Government technical advice and protected food names. The UK Government failed to consult or even inform us of the updated notice yesterday. The UK Government states that current holders, for example Scottish salmon, beef and lamb, may need to re-apply to the EU for protection in Europe and in other countries where there is mutual recognition. It has long been clear also that leaving the EU under any circumstances will have a negative impact on the health and social care sector. If free movement is curtailed, this would have serious consequences for the recruitment and retention of health and social care workers. On medicines, the Scottish Government is working with all other UK Administrations to make sure that patients get the medicines and other medical supplies that they need as far as possible. Many of the practical issues that are connected to medicines supply, such as entry and customs controls, are outwith devolved competency. We continue to raise specific concerns directly with the Department of Health and Social Care. In addition, last week, the Scottish Government's chief pharmaceutical officer wrote to pharmacists and other health professionals to provide information advice. One particular point that is being emphasised is that it is important that patients take a careful view, discuss issues with their GP and pharmacists and do not rush to increase their own supplies. A no-deal Brexit also raises concerns in areas such as the supply of medical devices, clinical trials, access to future EU funding and the rights of Scottish citizens to secure state-provided healthcare across the EU. NHS Scotland boards are taking forward their own planning to mitigate that with Scottish Government support. If there was a no-deal outcome, we could be denied access to many of the security and law enforcement's co-operation measures that Police Scotland and the Crown Office used daily to keep people safe. We would lose membership of Europol, the use of the European arrest ward and access to vital information sharing arrangements. That would represent a significant downgrading of our policing and security capability when cross-border crime and security threats are increasing. As the chief constable outlined to the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing last week, Police Scotland is taking forward extensive preparations for loss of those measures working closely with the Government. It is also making arrangements to ensure that officers are available for and trained for civil contingencies' demands and for mutual aid requests. Police Scotland has today 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. Across the Scottish Government, we are aligning our existing financial and staff resources towards those areas with specific no-deal impacts and ensuring that we have the right people in the right places with the right skills to respond quickly and effectively. Across the public sector, resources are being diverted to essential preparations. A decision to remain in the EU would allow those resources to be returned to the support of front-line services and the delivery of Scotland's priorities. Our basic principle, however, is that the Scottish Government believes that any costs related to EU exit by public bodies, be they in government, local government or the public sector, should not have a detrimental impact on Scotland's public finances. Finally, let me turn, Presiding Officer, to communications. The Scottish Government does not intend to replicate the UK approach of publishing a myriad of technical notices. Where those affect Scotland or Scottish issues, we are happy to see them distributed, we have done our best to influence them. We will, however, do all we can to ensure that the people of Scotland get a clear, consistent message about the work that is being done and what actions they need to take. We have therefore launched a public information website to provide important advice around issues such as transport, food, medicines and citizens' rights. It is now available at mygov.scot forward slash euw exit. This will be regularly reviewed and updated in order to ensure that the latest information is made available. We are co-ordinating our message with the UK Government where possible and supplementing its message as we feel necessary. That is the right way forward in terms of resources and clarity. We should not accept the suggestion that no deal is somehow inevitable, nor should we allow anyone to normalise it. There are elected members of the Conservative party whose aim seems to be not to remove no deal as an option, but to champion it. Instead of facing them down, the Prime Minister is indulging and pandering to their extreme views. Unless and until the UK Government takes the necessary steps to rule no deal out, the Scottish Government must go on with and indeed intensify our work to prepare as best we can, though Scotland did not vote for this and should not be having to go through it. Can I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement? I would encourage all those who have not yet pressed and wish to ask a question to do so now. I call on Adam Tomkins to open for the Conservative party. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the minister for early sight of his statement. Only through the looking-glass world of nationalist doublespeak, however, could we have condemnation of a no-deal Brexit coupled with condemnation of the only deal on the table that would avoid a no-deal Brexit. I agree with much of what the minister has said about the dangers of a no-deal Brexit. I do not support a no-deal Brexit, and I cannot falsely see the circumstances in which I would do so. The Parliament's Finance and Constitution Committee has said that it is strongly of the view that a no-deal Brexit would be damaging to the Scottish economy and is clearly not in the national interest. That was an all-party view in committee, and I agree with it. The Prime Minister has opened all-party talks on seeking a solution that avoids a no-deal Brexit and that can command majority support in the House of Commons and the agreement of the European Union. Even that great statesman Jeremy Corbyn is now taking part in those talks, but not Nicola Sturgeon. Last week, there was a meeting to which the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales were invited, chaired by the Prime Minister. The Chancellor attended, as did the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Brexit Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The First Minister of Wales was there, but not the First Minister of Scotland and nor is she attending next week, which we have just been told. Does that not tell us all that we need to know? Nicola Sturgeon is not interested in negotiating an orderly Brexit. She is not interested in governing at all. She is interested only in grievance and grandstanding. Does the minister not realise that Scotland has long since seen through it? The story of this is written. The inability of Adam Tomkins to respond to the serious circumstances and the reality of the situation will at least merit a footnote in the history. Let me address the points that he has made such as they are. Let me start, however, with the issue of the Lewis Carroll looking glass world. I am not an expert in Lewis Carroll, but I thank the spectre of a Prime Minister who, in the end, votes against her own deal, as she did last week, would be seen as being something in the looking glass. That is what has happened. The Prime Minister has walked away from the deal that she had agreed because she is afraid of the extreme Brexiteers. Let me then move on to the issue of what is actually happening in Toxson. I am always aware that Adam Tomkins, while he regards himself as being in the loop, is actually not even in the outer circle. I would not use the word loopy, of course, being unparliamentary, but I think that it is not a bad word. The reality is that he has confused two things, and perhaps deliberately or perhaps he simply does not know, so let me tell him. The Nicola Sturgeon has sat down with the Prime Minister to talk about the issues surrounding Brexit and how they might move forward. I have been present twice in Downing Street in recent weeks with the First Minister when those discussions have taken place. Adam Tomkins, of course, has not been present, so that probably explains why he does not understand it. There is a different and parallel process going on, which is the preparations for no deal. That is a technical process that is established with the cabinet sub-committee to which the First Minister of Wales and the First Minister of Scotland were asked either to attend or to send their appropriate representatives. In the structure of the Government of Wales, the First Minister is taking this on. In the structure of the Government of Scotland, then the people responsible for it are the Deputy First Minister and myself. Deputy First Minister chairing the score committee and myself in terms of the work that I am doing to implement some of those decisions. Therefore, I think that we were and remain the appropriate people to attend this. Just as the First Minister will continue to meet with the Prime Minister, though I have to say that my experience of those discussions with the Prime Minister has been that the Prime Minister is not trying to learn anything from anybody, she is simply trying to persuade people that she is right. I am afraid that she is not, and she will not succeed in persuading us. Neil Findlay is to be followed by Patrick Harvie. I thank the cabinet secretary for his early statement. I am delighted that Mr Tomkins recognises Jeremy Corbyn as a statesman, not a charge that he could ever level against Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Liam Fox or any of the rest of them, who got us into this mess in the first place, Mr Tomkins. As Brexit approaches, the anxiety of businesses, people in industry and workers grows. We have all tried our best to speak sense to the Prime Minister, but she has engaged in a 40-year Tory civil war over Europe, uninterested in who gets caught up in the fallout. Just this week, we have seen this and state that they are no longer going to make their newest model of car in Sunderland. Those are very serious concerns. Jobs will be lost and it was all, of course, very avoidable. I agree with the cabinet secretary on article 50. It is inconceivable that we can simply march off the cliff in a few weeks' time. That would be an outrageous act of self-harm. How can the UK Government go on telling people that everything is going to be all right when they clearly have no plan? How are the Tories going to deliver a deal that does not threaten living standards, jobs and our strong relationship with our European neighbours? We have waited and vain for over two years for an answer. On a practical level, the Government is right to plan for no deal and has a duty to do so. We have raised the issue of preparations in Parliament many times before. I want to offer my party's full support to the cabinet secretary for the planning that is being done on business continuity, transport, medicines and all the rest of it. We will support the Government's actions to prevent chaos. On the issue of communications, I think that that is the key issue in this. Can the cabinet secretary advise how, other than referring to people to a website, how will businesses and the community know what is happening in concise and unconfusing information in terms of the developments that may occur? I am grateful to the member for the support that he and his party are giving to the process. I think that he is right to identify communication as a key issue, particularly business communication. The take-up of information has been alarmingly low from businesses and from other sectors, and that is clear throughout these islands, something that the UK Government has identified too. In addition to the website, there is targeted work being done through local and national media. The UK Government has started its press campaign. We believe that we should have our press campaign, but we want to see how the UK Government goes, so that has to be done. There also has to be substantial work at word-of-mouth activity between businesses. I spend a lot of my time meeting organisations and all the time I am saying to them, have you talked to businesses in your area, in your sector, about, for example, the Get Ready for Brexit website, which is the best business resource that most people have seen. We will continue to try to do so, but we also have to say to business that we really have an obligation now, as everybody does, to find things out. The website is there. There is targeted information, there are publications. The Government, no deal, notices are there. I do not believe that they are very helpful in many regards, but they give some information. It is all there, but there is a message that each member in this Parliament should put out in their own communities. It should be get the information now, particularly if you are a small business. You do not have to be exporting to the EU. Every business is going to be affected if there is a no deal, and they need to pick up that information as quickly as they could. Can I make one final point, Presiding Officer? Mr Finlay raises the issue of Nisan, and I think that it is a really crucial issue, because it goes to the heart of the Brexit process. When the Nisan original route took place in 2016, the UK Government Minister said that there is no checkbook. He said that there is no sweetener. We now know that an £80 million offer was made. I think that it is still necessary to have trust in public life, and if a minister says that and then is found not to be telling the truth, there must be consequences. I am grateful for the advance copy of the statement. The Scottish Government's website mentions the possibility that there may be risk to the availability of some medicines, but it does not yet give advice to citizens as to what they can do about that. When does the cabinet secretary expect to be able to add to the website with information about what citizens should do in those situations? If no deal is to be avoided on the Prime Minister's terms, it requires not only a meaningful vote at Westminster, but the passage of the withdrawal agreement bill, which will be novel, complex, controversial, amendable and yet has not even been published in draft form. Has the UK Government shared a draft of that legislation with the Scottish Government, or do we anticipate that Scotland will be treated with the same degree of contempt at that stage as it has been throughout this process? I think that it is a recipe for disaster in any legislative process to bring any legislation of that nature, that huge complex nature, and to say that we want to do it in the way that they want to do it. It cannot be done, actually. It just cannot be done. Mr Thomas is shouting your continuity bill. The Parliament has a procedure for emergency legislation. It was observed to the letter, and those of us who sat for 12 hours in this chamber going through in detail knew that that was what was required. I see no such preparations at Westminster for a bill that is 10 times as complex. I do pay individual tribute, and people will find that surprising, to a Brexit-year minister, Suella Braverman, who resigned recently, because she was working on the withdrawal implementation bill and working constructively with myself and a number of others to show us as much as she could at the time. We have not seen much since she resigned, and we certainly have not seen that bill in its entirety, and that will be a concern. I have made it clear in recent months that I do not believe that the UK Government can complete its primary or secondary legislation programme in the time available to it. If I was saying that two months ago, clearly I am still saying it, and it is still not moving forward. I believe that we have a complete crisis in that regard. Moreover, I think that UK Government ministers accept and believe that, too, because many of them are saying so. The only person who does not is a Prime Minister, but she appears to be to a deaf to any entreaties. On the final point on the issue of medicines, substantial work is being done by my colleague Jeane Freeman and her officials to ensure that that list is narrowed down to the lowest possible number of items that could be problematic. There will be a substantial role for doctors, for GPs and others to inform their patients in those circumstances. I think that we should allow that process to move ahead in that way rather than to alarm people by publishing lists of medicines. I think that that is the right way to do it, and that is how it will continue to be done. Tavish Scott, to be followed by Joan McAlpine. On Monday, the UK Government published guidance on exporting and importing fish if there is no Brexit deal. That explains that Scottish businesses will now have to provide a catch certificate, an export health certificate, a prior notification form, a pre-landing declaration, a storage document, a processing statement—six separate forms, not so much a sea of opportunities but an ocean of red tape. What is the Scottish Government seeking to do to alter that disastrous economic and bureaucratic imposition, given how much whitefish is exported by Scottish businesses to the European Union? The member is absolutely right. It would be great if we were able to say in this chamber today that let us change those arrangements. The easiest way to change those arrangements, of course, is to be a member of something called the European Union. In those circumstances, those would not apply. The only party that continues to support this process of Brexit in that way is the party there. I hope that they will account for themselves to the fishing communities of the north and east and west of Scotland, the communities that I serve to as a member serves. Because what they have done is consistently told those communities things that are not true. For example, the argument that exists that says that there will be the ability to land whatever catches you want and sell anywhere you want simply was not true. Revealingly, we also saw this week, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, accepting that it would have to not increase but reduce catches if there was no deal, because it would not be able to sell the fish that it was catching. That tells you the extraordinary nature of that. A completely false prospectus sold by the Conservatives, taken up by the fishing community, who will, as usual, find themselves betrayed by the Conservatives. Thank you. All the parties have had a good opening go at this, but there are 10 remaining members wishing to ask a question. Joan McAlpine to be followed by Donald Cameron. The cabinet secretary has just said that there is no longer time for the UK Parliament to pass the legislation that is required to prepare for Brexit, and this is particularly the case for the withdrawal agreement bill. Is this not another reason why the UK Government should stop pretending that an extension to article 50 is not necessary, be honest with both Parliament and people and seek that extension immediately? Donald Cameron to be followed by Bruce Crawford. The UK Government has given the Scottish Government £92 million to prepare for Brexit. In light of what the minister said about security and law enforcement measures, can he confirm that none of that money has yet been handed to Police Scotland? I think that this idea that, in some sense, we are recipients of generosity from the UK Government on the process of Brexit is utterly bizarre. It is a perversion of the truth. We have extraordinary requirements on us, and there are huge difficulties, to be bet. We will take care of those in the competent way that we always do. When we listen to the Conservatives shouting about those, it proves two things. One is, as we saw earlier with Mr Tomkins, he does not understand anything about it, but the second one is that they are seeking to exploit a situation that they were meant to be against Brexit. They are now born again Brexiteers who are leading the country to disaster. Frankly, as far as I am concerned, Mr Mackay will give an accounting for this, but the real accounting will come at the ballot box when the Tories are judged upon this appalling thing that they have done. Bruce Crawford to be followed by Pauline McNeill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the 4th Valley Division of Police Scotland is no longer authorising new requests for police officers annual leave, covering the period of about a month, starting on 29 March? Can he also confirm that a number of offers trained in public order have been identified for deployment to Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal? Does he agree that the potential disruption to the lives of those working in our emergency services and the increased risks to communities across Scotland demonstrates further the complete madness of refusing to rule out a no-deal Brexit and crashing out of the European Union? Thank you, Presiding Officer. There is a question, unlike the one before it, that has some knowledge of what is happening in the police and some concern for it. We note today's announcement that Police Scotland intends to put 360 officers on standby from mid-March. Decisions on police officers' staffing leave and deployment are operational matters. Decisions around officer deployment, contingency planning and mutual aid are also operational matters, but we would all welcome the prudent, sensible approach to contingency planning that has come from Police Scotland to ensure that it remains best place to keep people safe. Public order training is an operational matter, but it is the second biggest force in the UK that Police Scotland has said that it will consider mutual aid requests, and that is up to the chief constable. However, it is a reminder of the huge disruption and effort that is going into the matter. That is caused by the Tory UK Government's chaotic approach to Brexit. There is no other reasoning for that. That is caused by a Government that has been hell-bent in achieving something that should not have been achieved, but they are also achieving it very badly indeed. So let us not hear any crocodile tears about the police force. They are the people responsible for where we are. Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Annabelle Ewing. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is critically important that ordinary people who are frightened about Brexit see that the politicians and the parties are working together to prevent the disaster of a no deal? That is what the public expects. Cabinet secretary, if the Scottish resilience partnership will do a city-by-city analysis of the impact of our economy and recognise the importance of information coming back from those businesses about how Brexit will affect them? We receive information on and work is done on analysis both regionally and by sector through the work of the chief economist, for example, and Mr Mackay's team. The information does flow in and is flowing in, but I absolutely agree with the member on the issue of working together. She and I have differences on a whole range of matters and across this chamber there will be differences in a whole range of matters, but with the exception of the Conservatives, the parties have managed to work together on this issue. Labour, the SNP, Greens, Liberal Democrats have worked together and continue to work together on this basis. Now, we give even greater strength to this. If the Conservatives reverted to the position that they took during the withdrawal bill, they even better reverted the position that they took during the EU referendum and accepted that this is a disaster that Scotland did not vote for, and that they spoke for Scotland. Alas, they only speak for the Conservative party, and that is clear in the votes in this chamber. Cabinet Secretary, 50 days to go to Brexit and still no deal and no plan. Instead of Tory MP workshops, should the UK Prime Minister not now step up to the plate and put the interests of the countries of the UK before the narrow interests of the Conservative party? She should. She should have done that last year and the year before, but she has shown herself to be incapable of doing so. I am, as they say, I hope and, but I do not think that it is going to happen. Jamie Greene will be followed by George Adam. Putting aside some of the very predictable political rhetoric in the statement, can I welcome some of the measures that the cabinet secretary proposes in improving connectivity into and out of the Scottish market, something that we should be doing anyway? Can I ask if he could give an opportunity to elaborate further on some of the specific conversations that he is having around our port, marine and rail freight capabilities? In bare mind that Scotland owns a publicly funded airport that is entirely suitable for freight operations, is he minded to invite members from right across the chamber to participate in some of those conversations where there is an appropriate constituency or regional interest? I will always be prepared to involve members who are willing to be involved and whose contribution will be a positive and constructive one. That would, for example, include supporting efforts being made by the First Minister to represent Scotland in the United States. Any member who supports that and visibly supports that, I would be glad to know, is supporting Scotland's international potential. On the terms of improving connectivity, the resilience committee meets this afternoon, in fact it meets within half an hour. The key topic this afternoon will be some of the issues of connectivity in ports. I visited the Port of Zebrooga just over two weeks ago to understand some of the issues that were arising there, and I will be part of that discussion this afternoon. At the appropriate time, I will keep the chamber informed, but I will also make sure that businesses and others are informed, because they are the ones who really matter in this. They may have been abandoned by the Conservatives, but not by this Government. One of the key concerns for many of my constituents relates to medicines, which the cabinet secretary covered in his statement. Although many of the practical issues connected to medicine supply are outwith the control of the Scottish Government, could the cabinet secretary perhaps expand on the information and advice of the Scottish Government's chief pharmaceutical officer in relation to that, and provide some advice for those living with long-term conditions ahead of March 29? Yes. The first advice that would be given, and I have that from my colleague the health secretary, would be to make sure that there is a conversation with your GP, with any GP involved in that, so that they understand. However, I will certainly also say, and the health secretary is here, that there may be a case for the health secretary or others communicating, for example, with some of the organisations that support people with long-term conditions, so that they are reassured about what the situation is. We can look at seeing if that can take place. Thank you very much. I am afraid that that concludes our statement. I apologise to James Kelly, Angela Constance and Stuart McMillan that we were not able to reach additional questions. We will move straight on to topical questions. We will just take a few seconds for our ministers and members to change seats.