 I thank you, time is tight, so I'll move on. Next item of business is portfolio questions and as usual, to get as many people in as possible, I'd like short succinct questions, well by short succinct answers question 1, Bruce Crawford. To ask the Scottish Government how the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018 will change the way in which domestic abuse is tackled. Cabinet Secretary. The Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018 creates a specific offence covering not only physical abuse but other forms of psychological abuse and controlling behaviour that were previously difficult to prosecute. The Act creates a course of conduct defence for the first time, making it easier for police and prosecutors to investigate and prosecute domestic abuse as a single offence, enabling physical, psychological and controlling behaviour by a partner or ex-partner to be prosecuted at once. It reflects the fact that children are harmed by domestic abuse by creating a statutory aggravator in relation to children and will enable the court for the first time to use a non-harassment order to protect children as well as the adult victim of the offence. Bruce Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. In preparation for changes in the legislation, can the cabinet secretary tell me how much the Scottish Government has provided Police Scotland in order to support police officers understanding the dynamics of power, control and abuse of relationships and to help them to recognise the signs of coercive and controlling behaviour? That is an important point raised by Bruce Crawford. As he knows and members will know at the beginning of the month, legislation came into force to allow that training to have to take place. We gave to directly answer his question £825,000 of funding to Police Scotland. That was to support the development of training of 14,000 police officers and staff. Police Scotland has also developed a self-completion e-learning package on the new legislation, which has made available to 22,000 staff. As well as that Lord President committed to ensuring all members of the judiciary who receive training on the act and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have developed a package of training for our prosecutors as well. We have also provided £166,000 to Scottish Women's Aid to develop training around the new offence and domestic abuse act. In the response to the Justice Committee report on the domestic abuse act, the Scottish Government accepted that it is possible that the creation of the new coercive controlling behaviour offence could lead to an increased cost for local authorities with regard to the increased demand for criminal justice social work services. Given that the CGSW budget for the previous two years has remained static, will the cabinet secretary confirm that the necessary funding to cope with the anticipated increase in costs will be made available to local authorities? It is important to note that she is asking an important question. We have ring-fenced that budget for local authorities. My conversations with COSLA and local authorities continue on the matter, with any additional pressures that they may face, with the passing of the presumption against short sentences, for which we have made additional budgets available. I will continue those conversations. I am very aware of those budget pressures that may well exist, but as I say in my conversations and engagement with local authorities, they are very constructive on the matter. The issue of training is an important one with regard to domestic abuse. Indeed, some jurisdictions' specialist officers are trained to degree level. What discussions he has held with Police Scotland and the SPA regarding the possibility of higher-level training to degree level for specialist officers in that area? It is not something that Police Scotland has raised with me, nor is it either the number of organisations such as Scottish Women's Aid that represent women and female victims in particular of domestic abuse. It has not been raised with me that there needs to be additional training than the training that we have funded or the training that Scottish Women's Aid has provided. I will certainly, in my next conversations with Police Scotland and with the other organisations that represent victims of domestic abuse, raise that issue about further training and I will take the conversation from there. Fulton MacGregor Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what action it can take to support vulnerable witnesses before, during and after criminal court proceedings. The Victims and Witnesses Scotland Act 2014 introduced measures to support vulnerable witnesses and required criminal justice agencies to set and monitor standards of service. The vulnerable witnesses bill aims to improve how children, eventually, other vulnerable witnesses give evidence through the enhanced use of pre-recording. We are also providing £18 million in 2019-20 to fund a range of services that victims and witnesses can access before, during and after criminal proceedings. The Victims Task Force, which I co-chair alongside the Lord Advocate, is considering additional actions to improve end-to-end support for victims and witnesses throughout the criminal justice process and beyond. Fulton MacGregor I thank the cabinet secretary for that response and I welcome the vulnerable witnesses bill, which has recently passed through the justice committee. I have been contacted by constituents whose children were witnesses at court giving evidence in a crime where they were the victims. Although there was a successful conviction, which was very welcome, the family's field of support, especially in emotional nature, was not provided to their children by the justice system or the local authority, particularly in the period following the conviction. Can the cabinet secretary advise how children who are both victims and witnesses can be better supported emotionally and to better understand the court processes and the possible outcomes? Would he consider meeting with those families to hear first hand about their experiences? I thank Fulton MacGregor for his question. Can I express my sympathies to those families and particularly young people who had to go through that process? That would have been a traumatic experience, I don't doubt, from everything that he is saying. I know that those things are not easy at all and they are exactly the kind of questions and issues that Lord Advocate and I are exploring as the co-chairs of the Victims Task Force. Of course, the Victims and Witnesses Bill is going through the Parliament, the Vulnerable Witnesses Bill is going through Parliament, which he knows and has an input in as a member of the Justice Committee. That will make a big difference to children that in the future have to go through a court process. On the specifics of the case, I would ask that Fulton MacGregor writes to me in the first instance with the detail of the case and from there I will judge whether it is appropriate for me to have no fundamental objection, but it may be that those issues are perhaps in other people's jurisdiction or remit. Of course, I will look at that very favourably. I know that you wish to be polite, cabinet secretary, but if you could face the microphone so that we can hear your answer. Government, what is its position on the way in which the control of dog Scotland Act 2010 has been implemented? Act 2010 provides local authorities with powers to impose dog control notices where a dog is deemed to be out of control. We are aware that some local authorities have imposed a considerable number of dog control notices, while others have not. However, that might reflect the fact that some local authorities are choosing to make greater use of informal warnings to dog owners. As the member will know, the Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee is currently undertaking scrutiny of that act, and we will carefully consider the committee's findings when that review is complete. Finlay Carson, I thank the minister for that response. It appears that, because it is not Government legislation, little has been done to promote it. It is claimed that even police officers do not know all about the control that was brought in almost a decade ago. Currently, the laws on dangerous dogs and cheap worrying are fragmented between various acts and statutory instruments, both devolved and at UK level. Does the minister not agree with me that we need an all-encompassing piece of legislation with clear powers that are outlined to ensure both enforcers and the public are clearly aware that their respective roles and responsibilities are in the control of dogs? The 2010 act provides the tools to consolidate that, and to cover multiple member's bills. The member raised a number of different points. I will address the one about awareness. The Scottish Government is always very keen to assist in awareness raising. The dog control notice is obviously run by local authorities, but we would be very happy to take part in further awareness raising work that might be helpful to communities on that. On the issue of livestock worrying, we are aware that there are concerns that dog control notices are not generally used for incidents of livestock worrying or livestock attack, as it is sometimes called. It is something that the police, rather than the local authority officers, would normally deal with. I am sure that the member will be aware that Ms Harper's bill proposal is currently out for public consultation, and I encourage people to respond and offer their views on those proposals. The control of dogs act 2010 does not specifically refer to livestock worry or livestock attack. It uses the word apprehension, which is why it is not strong enough. Does the minister then agree with me that we should encourage people to feed into the consultation so that we can get a better piece of legislation to better protect our farmers' livestock from attacks by out-of-control dogs? The Scottish Government recognises the impact of dog attacks on livestock, and we are committed to working with all our partners to tackle that. I agree with the member. I think that all those who have an interest in this should have a look at their consultation that Emma Harper has put forward and contribute their views on how livestock can be better protected. To ask the Scottish Government what support is given to breastfeeding mothers when attending court. This is an operational matter for the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service. SCTS fully embraced the responsibilities under the Breastfeeding Scotland Act 2005 by making facilities available within court buildings. Breastfeeding within court rooms is also welcomed. More broadly, the member will be aware that the 2005 act makes it a criminal offence to try to stop or to prevent a woman from feeding a child under the age of two in any place in which the public has access and in which the child under two is entitled to be. While legislation is in place to support public breastfeeding, we recognise that more needs to be done to address the negative cultural attitudes that can undermine that choice. Last summer, we announced an additional £2 million investment for breastfeeding support. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response and as the author of that particular act, I am well aware of its provisions. However, I do appreciate that there is policy to accommodate breastfeeding in courts, but I was recently made aware of the case of a breastfeeding mother who was cited as a witness and advised by the Fiscal's Office that she would not be permitted to bring her baby to court. Does the cabinet secretary agree that clearer, non-conflicting guidance and information must be provided to all breastfeeding mums having to attend court? In the case of jury duty, if supporting breastfeeding mums is considered somehow impractical, then breastfeeding should be added to the list of excuses for jury duty. I thank Elaine Smith for that question. I do not know the specific case that she is referring to, but I might know which case it is that she is referring to. She wants to chat to me offline about the specific case, of course. I can see if I can help to address that or facilitate conversations with SCTS. I would say that there are some complications in the public area of the court. There must be no bar to a mother who wishes to breastfeed. Conduct in the courtrooms is the responsibility of the judge or sheriff. For example, there is a statutory bar for children under the age of 14 being in the courtroom during a criminal trial, except as witnesses or a party to proceedings. In addition, a judge will consider the interests of justice and the normal requirements for ensuring proper conduct of proceedings, which might not necessarily be conducive to a small child being in the court environment, notwithstanding all that. I fully accept what Elaine Smith says, in cases particularly for jurors. I know the case that she is referring to. Facilities must be made available and should be made available. If she wants an introduction to Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to facilitate that conversation further, I would be more than happy to make that an introduction. I ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether there is a need for greater accountability to reduce the risk of people abusing power of attorney status. Arrangements for powers of attorney are set out in the Adults with Incapacity Scotland act of 2000. The arrangements include protections for those who may be vulnerable, and it is for the grantor to select someone who they trust to act as their attorney. The office of the public guardian has a statutory duty to investigate reported concerns regarding the actions of a financial attorney. The relevant local authority has a similar duty in respect of welfare concerns. The Scottish Government has consulted on aspects of the adults with incapacity legislation, and we are working on improvements, including revision to the current code of practice for attorneys to set out as clearly as possible the rights and responsibilities of attorneys and the safeguards that are in place to protect individuals and the sanctions that can be imposed for misuse. John Mason? I thank the minister for that answer, but I just feel that the safeguards are not very great. I recently took over the power of attorney for my mother, and I now have complete access to do whatever I want with her house and all her other financial investments and so on. I do not even have to return an annual report of what I have done with the money, so I do not plan to abuse my mother's money, but I think that there is a tremendous option to do so. You have all these witnesses now, minister. I am glad that the member has made that clarification of to his intents. The arrangements for appointing an attorney are set out in the Adults with Incapacity act to make it clear that it is a private matter for the grantor of the power to consider who it is that they trust to make decisions on their behalf in the future. As it is a private matter, there is no statutory supervision of the financial attorneys by the Office of the Public Guardian and the OPG does not supervise financial guardians. It is a separate process where the applications are made to the sheriff court. If financial concerns are reported to the public guardian, the financial attorney will have to account for their decisions and their actions. Back in 2017, I wrote to the minister's predecessor about concerns that have been raised with me about the restrictions on who could sign applications for powers of attorney at that stage. Annabelle Ewing confirmed that consultation on changes to adults with capacity legislation was taking place. Will the minister commit to writing to me with an update of what changes, if any, have been made to the rules around that? I am happy to commit to writing to the member with an update on that matter. To ask the Scottish Government when it last meant local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service to get an update on secure unit accommodation. It is not quite as drafted but close. The Scottish Government officials are in regular contact with key organisations involved in the delivery of secure care in Scotland. Officials met local authorities regarding the matter on 5 November 2018, 21 January 2019 and Social Work Scotland on 19 February this year. There have been no meetings with the Scottish Prison Service as they have no involvement in the provision of secure care and we have had no discussions with them on that specific matter. I thank the cabinet secretary for the answer. The latest update states that there are no vacant beds in Scotland's five secure units. What would happen over the next 48 hours if a young person was remanded and a judge recommended that they be placed in a care unit? I say that it is my understanding that there is a secure emergency bed available. That does have limitations. Of course, it is only for short-term use only normally for 72 hours, but James Kelly is absolutely right to ask his question. It is something that the Government Deputy First Minister in particular has been taking forward after the tragic case of William Lindsay Brown, which he knows about. The issue is complex and I know that James Kelly will appreciate that. Of course, because those secure units are run by independent charities, or most of them are run by independent charities, with the exception of Edinburgh City Council's provision, they have to be kept filled to approximately 90 per cent capacity, otherwise many of those independent charities have said that they would not be able to sustain the secure units. We have to find a balance between keeping space available, which is important, while making sure that the secure units are sustainable. I am expecting an options paper from officials to myself and another Government minister shortly once we have an update to provide on sure that James Kelly has made a way of that update. Presiding Officer, do you ask the Scottish Government what the impact on the justice system will be of a new age of criminal responsibility of 12 coming into force? Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Constitution Raising the age to 12 through the age of criminal responsibility bill will remove children under that age from the criminal justice system. That means that children under the age of 12 will no longer be arrested or charged, nor will children under 12 be referred to the children's hearing system on offence grounds. However, where children have engaged in serious harmful behaviour, that still needs to be investigated appropriately. The bill sets out detailed police powers to make clear how and when and also the boundaries within which police and other agencies in the justice system can act to investigate such incidents. Coming into force is the result of international imperative. Another international imperative is to end the use of police cells for incarceration of children, albeit under the guise of place of safety. Will the cabinet secretary undertake a review of the use of police cells for children even in terms of place of safety, as it is recognised in our first childhood experience? Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Constitution Just very briefly, I know my colleague Marie Todd, who leads on the bill, has said very publicly that we do not want to see children in police cells. There may be reasons why that is the only option, but that should be the absolute exception. Certainly not the rule, so Marie Todd will continue those discussions in advance of stage 3 of the bill. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has received any representations from Glasgow City Council seeking additional funding in relation to £92 million of consequentials resulting from EU exit preparation funding. As a responsible Government, we are preparing for all EU exit possibilities, and as part of that work, we are working closely with our partners in local government to help to identify and prepare for the potential impacts of an EU exit. I am aware that Glasgow City Council and other local authorities have expressed concerns about the possible costs while leaving the EU. We have not, as things stand, received any specific request from Glasgow City Council for additional funding. That said, because I have written to the Scottish Government seeking additional funding for councils to help to meet brexit related costs, and that request is being considered. Given the scale of cuts to Glasgow's budgets and the impact on local services and local communities, I have to express some surprise that there has not been more specific demands to the Government. Can the cabinet secretary clarify and confirm how much of the £54.7 million in EU exit consequentials for 2019-20 will be spent by local government, given the importance of local government in delivering local services? If he cannot tell me now, will he provide a written response as soon as possible to give local government confidence that they will get funds to address the budget shortfalls that they are experiencing? The £54.7 million referred to has been allocated to the Scottish budget across all relevant budget areas, including local government. One of the few certainties of brexit is that it will cost Scotland more than the consequentials delivered by Westminster. Of course, local government is one victim of that. Glasgow City Council has, I understand, been undertaking financial modelling to identify the costs of officer time and the need for additional services. That will inform next steps on their path. The Scottish Government is alive to the burden placed on councils, where Brexit Scotland did not vote for and has made clear that we will seek moneys from Westminster to meet incurred costs. I hope that we would have the support of Johann Lamont and others on the waiver benches in making the case to the UK Government for a further and appropriate financial settlement from which to address that burden. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland bill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wrote to the Presiding Officer on 5 April to set out the Scottish Minister's next steps in giving effect to the decisions that the Parliament took when passing the continuity bill, decisions that were within the Scottish Parliament's powers to take at that time, but in many cases powers that were retrospectively taken away from this Parliament by an act of the Westminster Parliament. The Scottish ministers have reluctantly come to the conclusion that, given the effect that the EU withdrawal act has had on the competence of this Parliament, the best way of giving effect to these decisions is through further legislation tailored to the circumstances of EU exit and to the newly limited powers of this Parliament rather than by seeking to have the Parliament reconsider the continuity bill. As I said on my letter to the Presiding Officer, I am happy to answer questions on this matter here or in any parliamentary setting. Gordon Lindhurst. I think the minister for that answer, but after months of rhetoric of threats, big talk and using emergency procedures to rush the bill through, the Scottish Government is now scrapping this act. Surely all along, this was no attempt at constructive lawmaking but just another SNP grandstanding event. Cabinet Secretary. Well, Mr Lindhurst may believe what he wishes, but it's a complete travesty of the truth and he should recognise that. The reality of the situation is that the bill was lawful when it was passed by this Parliament. It was the Supreme Court that was very, very clear about that matter. What happened was that the UK Tory Government, members of the same party—as Mr Lindhurst, so I'm sure he will want to take some responsibility for that—members of the same party then passed legislation to enact your fact, damage and destroy this bill. That was an anti-democratic action. It was one that he, as an elected member, should speak against, but if he is willing to accept anything, even that type of anti-democratic action from his own party, then he is not worthy of the place that he occupies. Annabelle Ewing briefly. Presiding Officer, can the cabinet secretary confirm, for the avoidance of any doubt, that the Scottish Government in its on-going work will respect to the maximum extent possible? The choice is made by the Scottish Parliament when it passed the continuity bill and that the Scottish Government will introduce new legislation to bring back provisions on keeping pace with EU law. The keeping pace powers survived even the Tory assault upon the bill. They are important powers. I think that the Parliament will want to look at them again. The choice was clear and indeed it was a choice that was taken and discussed with all the parties, including the Conservative party, who were part of those discussions. The conclusion in the end, and I believe that it was the right conclusion, was to take the bill into reconsideration, which would be the first time that those powers had been used in this Parliament. It would have been a risky thing. It would have been a narrow thing. It is quite wise that we look at the keeping pace powers again, because we may wish to expand those powers to enable us to do some of the things that we otherwise could not have done. I think that that is an opportunity. It is an opportunity that we will take. I think that it will have the support across the chamber, because that was my indication in the cross-party talks. I am never sure whether that is going to hold with the Conservatives, but I think that it will hold with others. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the expected timetable for current bills to progress. Legislative planning continues to be unimpacted by the unwelcome requirement to divert resources to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. As a consequence, individual bill timetables are subject to continual review. As Minister for Parliamentary Business, I discussed this with the Parliamentary Bureau and relevant committee conveners on a regular basis. However, I can advise Mr Greene that, as things stand, the Scottish Government is on course to introduce all of the bills in the current programme for government ahead of the announcement of our next programme. Jamie Greene The minister has absolutely no sense of shame in his answer, given the incredible strain that today's announcement for an independence referendum bill will have on this Parliament. Last year's programme for government announced 12 bills. Minister, how many of those bills will have been published before this Parliament, before summer recess, and how many of them will actually have passed before the end of the session of this Parliament? Presiding Officer, sometimes you feel in government that you cannot win. A few moments ago, we were accused of bringing one bill too many, and now we are accused of not introducing enough bills. Let me offer the chamber a degree of context and assurance on that issue, in spite of the significant and growing impact of Brexit and the work of government and this Parliament that we have seen. We anticipate that more bills will achieve royal assent in 2019 than was the case last year. Furthermore, when Parliament returns in September, this administration will have a full programme of fresh and exciting new legislation to announce. That, of course, stands in marked contrast to Westminster, where Mr Greene's party is in power, where they have run out of non-Brexit business to consider, and where it is supported, they are so paralysed by Brexit and ravaged by the divisions that caused that they are struggling to put together a sufficient programme of bills that they can agree on to present in a Queen's speech. Neil Findlay I can ask the minister, obviously, given the First Minister's statement, the Government's plans have changed. Therefore, can he explain what will be taken out from the Government's plans in order for the First Minister's plans to be put in? Presiding Officer, there are no plans to remove anything from the Government's programme of business. We intend to introduce all the bills that we had intended to do previously. I have every faith in the ability of this Parliament to work its way through that programme and see those bills to a conclusion. Miles Briggs To the Scottish Government, what discussions it has had with the Electoral Commission regarding the provision of a free mail shot for local government election candidates? The Scottish Government has not had any discussion with the Electoral Commission regarding the provision of a free mail shot for local government election candidates in the past five years. I understand that it has been discussed before that. I haven't called you yet, Mr Briggs. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and like to put on record our thanks to councillors from all parties and non who serve our communities. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that more consideration should be given to providing council candidates with a free mail shot during elections, as all parliamentary candidates currently receive? That would help to look towards not only recognising the importance of local elections but helping to make sure that we increase the diversity of candidates and those who currently are deterred from standing because of concerns around campaign costs. Is there any willingness to discuss this with people if they could bring to the table actual evidence of people being deterred because of campaign leaflet costs? I think that it is much more likely that people are deterred for a range of other reasons, including the salaries that are paid, whether they believe that they are going to be able to do an effective job. I think that I would want to see evidence of that brought to the table rather than supposition. If the member has that evidence and wishes to bring that evidence to the table, then I will send it. I will look at it and discuss it with the Electoral Commission, but I suspect that the evidence is about other matters rather than this. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Tasked Scottish Government, when it last held discussions with the Prime Minister. The First Minister and Prime Minister met on 3 April in Downing Street to discuss the UK Government's plans for EU exit. However, the UK Government so far refused to show any willingness to compromise in relation to the single market and retaining freedom of movement, which are essential for Scotland's future. The First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister following the extension of article 50 until the end of October to call for on-going talks over EU exit to include the devolved administrations and for any deal agreed by the UK Parliament to be put to a second referendum. The Prime Minister has yet to reply. I raised the same issues in a phone call with David Lidington on the day after the decision was made by the European Council, and I hope to speak to him again this week. I thank the cabinet secretary for that fulsome answer. Can I suggest that next time anyone from our Government meets with the Prime Minister, they ask whether she considers herself a Democrat? If so, will she recognise the people's right to decide on their constitutional future and their right to Scotland's Parliament to represent its electorate? Will she also explain to Scotland how a Democrat can deny such rights? I think that it is a fair and accurate point. It is funny that, when we talk about Scottish democracy, the response to the Tories is to laugh. It always strikes me as significant that that is the case. The Scottish Tories wish to jeer at the concept of the sovereignty of the Scottish people. The issue that the Prime Minister and the Scottish Conservative Party need to address is the sovereignty of the Scottish people. They need to listen to the Scottish people instead of laughing at them or, in the case of the Prime Minister, contemptuously refusing to listen to them. Question 6 has been withdrawn. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Electoral Commission regarding planning in Scotland for a possible European Parliament elections in May 2019. Scottish Government officials take part in meetings of the Electoral Commission advisory board where planning for the possible European Parliament elections has been discussed. Those meetings are attended by returning officers, as well as Government officials, from all the four UK Administrations. Recently, meetings have taken place on a weekly basis. The Scottish Government's clear view is that the European Parliament elections should not be cancelled and should go ahead. I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the election will see the election of six Scottish MEPs. Could the cabinet secretary perhaps reflect on what Scotland's position would be if it were independent at this election? Does he share my hope that, subsequent to the European Parliament elections, Scotland will take part as an independent member of the European Union? I do hope for that. I would say to the UK Government that it is a very, very bad look to be involved in cancelling elections. It should look around the globe and see the record of those people, usually in dictatorships, who rejoice in cancelling elections, and they should think of that carefully. There is also a huge cost in organising elections, and that cost, of course, would be wasted. Of course, so much money has been wasted by the UK Government on Brexit, it would simply add to that. The experience of Brexit makes the case for independence within the EU even stronger. When you contrast the treatment of Scotland with that of independent nations, then it is very clear. However, the contrast is absolutely clear in representation in the European Parliament. The Republic of Ireland, a comparable population in Scotland, has 11 MEPs. Denmark has 13 MEPs, Scotland currently has an allocation of 6 MEPs, as part of the UK's total of 73 MEPs. We are being forced to the sidelines and to the margins. Independence would allow us to protect our place in Europe, conduct our relationships with the rest of the UK and the EU on the basis of equality. To ask the Scottish Government what impact it anticipates Brexit having on the supply of skilled labour. The Scottish Government published no-deal Brexit economic implications for Scotland on 21 February, which demonstrated clearly that Brexit would be catastrophic for jobs and investment across Scotland. Brexit creates risks around the confidence and competitiveness of businesses, its ability to plan and invest with certainty and potentially drastic increases in unemployment levels. When combining those issues will cause significant disruption to the supply of skills to businesses in this country, that is why we are working with a range of partners, including Skills Development Scotland, to understand the potential impact of Brexit in regions and sectors. We are preparing to respond as fully as possible to any resulting skills shortages and gaps, building on the strengths of our current skills system should the UK Government decide to see through its plans for Brexit. However, as Mr Gibson will recognise, you cannot fully mitigate the unmitigatable. I thank the minister for that comprehensive reply and for the first time I have heard the word unmitigatable. Does he agree that the labour supply will be disproportionately impacted in key sectors of the economy, where EU nationals form a significant part of the workforce? Can he outline what sectors are most likely to be adversely affected and what the effect will be on economic growth as a result? There are clearly a number of key sectors that will be particularly affected. Agriculture, hospitality, care services and the NHS, for example, all stand to be particularly adversely hit. If we consider the role of agriculture and the massive success story that food and drink is for Scotland, it becomes self-evident how damaging Brexit will be in that key growth area. By way of a specific detailed illustration, my constituency is home to a soft fruit industry, turning it over around £50 million annually. It requires access to more than 4,000 seasonal migrant workers to pick and pack its product, a workforce that is already finding difficulty accessing. That is before Brexit kicks in. Mr Gibson is absolutely right to highlight the threat posed by the Scottish economy by Brexit. That concludes portfolio questions. I see that some members in the next debate are not present. Now remember, business is a follow-on. If we gain time in one session, it means that we have more time for the debate. I am going to start the next debate notwithstanding that all members are not present in the chamber.