 G usually a question the number one. To ask the First Minister what her responses to the United Kingdom Government scrapping the EU settled status fee. I'm pleased that the Prime Minister has finally seen sense and listened to the deluge of calls to scrap the unfair settled status fee, including the call of this Parliament, with the exception of the Scottish Conservatives. However, dropping the fee does not change the fact that the UK Government is still making EU citizens apply to retain their current rights. Therefore, to assist EU citizens in our communities in order to apply for settled status, the Scottish Government's advice service, delivered in partnership with Citizens Advice Scotland, will help to ensure that EU citizens feel welcome, supported and valued. What's more, the Prime Minister's approach to migration makes it all the more clear why it's time for this Parliament to have powers over immigration to determine a tailor-made policy. Linda Fabiani, I thank the minister for that answer. May I advise the minister of a constituent who has lived in Scotland for decades but who has not renewed his EU passport? Now he has to do so at a cost to prove to the UK Home Office that he is in fact an EU national. In order to do that, he has to prove to his EU nation that he is not a British citizen. That is also at a cost by obtaining a confirmation of non-acquisition of British citizenship from the UK Home Office. Does the minister agree that this anomalous situation is insulting and concerning to someone who has lived and worked here for more than 30 years, raised his family, has a national insurance number and has paid taxes? Surely this man and others like him, no doubt, already has a proven right to continue to live in and contribute to Scotland. It is, after all, his home. Thank you, Linda Fabiani, for raising her specific case. I share the concerns about it being a situation that is insulting and of concern. I am sympathetic to the many families and individuals who have difficulties navigating the complex and increasingly restrictive UK immigration rules, as illustrated in the case raised by Linda Fabiani. It is right that EU citizens who have built their lives here and chosen to make Scotland their home should have all their rights protected. If the UK Government persists in its ambition to remove Scotland from the EU against the will of the Scottish people, it is vital that those EU citizens who have chosen to make their home here in Scotland are provided with the documentation that they need through as simple a process as possible in order to evidence their right to continue to live here as they do now. I would be happy to raise such cases, including the case raised by Linda Fabiani today, with the UK immigration minister, with the consent of the individuals concerned. I want to reassure all MSPs that we in the Scottish Government are pressing the UK Government for a fair and managed immigration system that recognises individual circumstances and provides a welcoming environment for new Scots and their families. I remind everyone, I mean everyone, that short questions and crisp answers would be very helpful. In other words, that is what I want. I welcome the scrapping of the fee for EU residents. Will the minister join me in calling for the UK Government to take the next step and end its hostile environment policy and its anti-immigration policies and rhetoric? Absolutly. I welcome the sentiment in Neil Findlay's question and wish we'd seen such a coherent position from Labour in the House of Commons earlier this week on the UK immigration bill. The hostile environment policy from the UK Government has been discredited in both practice and principle. It should be noted that, since June 2016, the UK Government should have provided assurances to EU citizens separate to any withdrawal agreement, and it could have done that in every month up until this point, and it didn't. It should think about that carefully. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment has made of the impact of Brexit on the life sciences sector. The Scottish Government has engaged widely across the breadth of the life science sector and commissioned Ernst and Young to undertake a sectoral impact analysis and Brexit readiness assessment. That assessment has been shared with the UK Government as clear evidence of the negative impact that Brexit will have across sectors in Scotland. It also accords with evidence from industry and unions that suggest that Brexit will be damaging to the sector in terms of tariff and non-tariff barriers, supply chain resilience, legal and regulatory compliance, free movement of people, loss of EU funding and disinvestment from foreign investors. David Stewart will be well aware that the Highlands and Islands have over 80 life sciences companies employing more than 1,800 people. All those companies rely on academic talent from the other 27 nations in the EU. Does the minister share my view that Brexit is a clear and present danger to the future viability of the life sciences sector in the Highlands and Islands? David Stewart makes an important point about the detriment of the removal of free movement as a whole if the UK leaves the EU and Brexit takes place. In a constructive manner and in good faith, I encourage David Stewart and colleagues to continue to engage with us as the Scottish Government and work together to push for flexibility in the UK immigration system by way of a Scottish visa so that we can support key sectors in our economy, including the life sciences sector. Innovation and research and development is key to the success of the life sciences sector. As the minister knows, a significant number of EU citizens work in R&D, what assistance therefore can the Scottish Government provide to ensure that competitiveness in R&D is not seriously compromised by Brexit? There are two aspects in which we can all work together proactively in order to continue to support R&D in the life sciences sector and elsewhere in terms of the challenges faced by Brexit. One is to continue to oppose the removal of free movement and to oppose the restrictions that are being set out in the UK Government's white paper on immigration, and two, we should all collectively be working together to urge the UK Government to continue to participate as a third partner country in the event of Brexit in EU programmes like Horizon 2020 and, indeed, at the Joint Ministerial Council on Europe in London on Monday. That is exactly what I pressed on behalf of Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government whether the Minister for Parliamentary Business will provide an update regarding the lodging of the legislative consent motion for the healthcare international arrangements bill. The legislative consent motion in question was lodged on Monday, 14 January. It was moved by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on Wednesday, 16 January, when it was agreed unanimously by the Parliament. Alison Harris I thank the minister for that answer, but surely finally giving consent after months of threats not to just shows up the Scottish Government's empty bluster and suggests that the right thing across all Brexit issues is to work consistently and dump the grand standing. The Scottish Government has shown itself through its approach to Brexit roll-ins legislation to be reasonable and pragmatic, but until and unless we can be assured that the decisions of the Parliament will be respected by the UK Government, we will not lodge legislative consent motions on Brexit-related provisions except in the most exceptional of circumstances. We will continue to contribute full weight to committee and parliamentary consideration and ensure that the Parliament is able to express its views on Brexit-related provisions in UK bills, but overarching all of that, Presiding Officer, is a simple truth. Our role as the Scottish Government is to stand up for the interests of Scotland, something that the Conservatives might want to try sometime. Question 4, Alexander Burnett. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I ask the Scottish Government what discussions ministers have had with civil servants regarding the EU withdrawal legal continuity Scotland bill since the Supreme Court's judgment on it? Presiding Officer, Scottish ministers regularly discuss matters within their responsibilities with officials. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary for Government, Business and Constitution has held a meeting with representatives of the parties in the Scottish Parliament to discuss the bill and the options for proceeding with it following the Supreme Court judgment. I thank the minister for that answer. The original largely unlawful bill was pushed through on emergency procedures, giving MSPs hardly any time to scrutinise important legislation compared to the EU withdrawal act, which had over 11 months. Can I ask the minister whether he will rule out using such emergency procedures in this way again? Presiding Officer, as I have indicated, the decision on how to proceed is the subject of on-going discussions between Mr Russell and the other parties of this Parliament. A meeting took place shortly before Christmas, I think that Mr Tomkins was there, and a further one is due later this week, I believe. An announcement on how we proceed will self-evidently be informed by those discussions, but an announcement will be made in the coming weeks. However, just to be clear, no matter how many times the Conservatives seek to claim otherwise, the Scottish Government's position on the continuity bill was vindicated by the Supreme Court. No ifs, no bats, no maybes. Willie Rennie Does the minister not think that the answer is a proper dispute resolution procedure on areas of common interest? Rather than a Scottish veto or a Westminster veto, surely the acceptance of common endeavour in areas of common interest is the way ahead? Presiding Officer, as I indicated earlier, this is a matter of discussion between the parties of the Parliament where each can genuinely input to the process. I would encourage Mr Rennie to bring forward those points, if he so wishes, at the next meeting, which I believe takes place tomorrow. To ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure that EU citizens living in Scotland can maintain democratic participation. EU citizens will retain their right to vote and stand in Scottish Parliament and local government elections after Brexit. We have previously set out our intent to protect EU citizens voting and candidacy rights in Scottish Parliament and local government elections. The programme for government includes a commitment to bring forward an electoral franchise bill that will extend the franchise to include citizens of all nationalities legally resident in Scotland. Rona Mackay I thank the minister for that answer. Several EU citizens in my constituency have been in touch with my office concerned about the UK Government's EU settlement scheme. Does the minister agree with me that the system is currently not fit for purpose, apart from the gross unfairness of it, as the UK Government's own settled status scheme app is only available to Android phone users and not to those using other mobile devices? I thank Rona Mackay for that supplementary. As I laid out in our programme for government for this year, we have stated already committed to bring forward a franchise bill. We have opposed the settled status fee charge, and we have set up our advice service working with Citizens Advice Scotland in order to advise the EU citizens in our communities who make such a huge contribution in order to help them through the settled status scheme. We are doing that going over and above anything that the UK Government is doing because, as was highlighted in Rona Mackay's question, there are serious misgivings around the technical and practical delivery of the UK Government's mechanisms for bringing EU citizens through the settled status scheme, but also how much their efforts are going in terms of reaching out into communities and assisting those who have accessibility issues or are not comfortable using digital technology. Our advice service will provide face-to-face advice, telephone advice and online advice, and we hope that it will make an important difference. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the preparations being made by it and its agencies for a potential no-deal Brexit. The Scottish Government remains committed to keeping Parliament informed of our contingency planning for the prospect of exiting the European Union without an agreement. We have repeatedly made clear that the UK Government can and should take immediate steps to exclude the possibility of a no-deal outcome. Until that happens, as a responsible Government, we will continue to intensify our preparations. That includes work at the directorate level on identifying the risks and potential impacts, as well as mitigating actions across a wide range of issues. The Scottish Government Resilience Committee leads on our preparations for no-deal, officials' key agency leads, ministers and a representative from COSLA meet each week to assess progress. I thank the minister for that answer. He will be aware that no-deal cannot be removed other than by our deal or by revoking article 50. Given the vote last night in the UK Parliament, does the minister agree that no-deal is now significantly more likely? Importantly, in this context, and following Mike Russell's statement in Parliament on 18 December, will the Scottish Government now place in the public domain technical notices covering devolved areas similar to the 105 notices published by the UK Government? By aligning herself with the hardline brexitier wing of our party last night, the Prime Minister has brought a no-deal scenario even closer, as Andy Wightman has alluded to. It is imperative that, while continuing to press the UK Government to see sense and step back from the brink, we continue to plan for the worst. It is entirely appropriate and necessary that we do so. Mr Russell addressed the issue of a no-deal planning in a statement a few weeks ago. The Scottish Government is happy to consider how we continue to up members, and I will take the point that Mr Wightman has raised a way to discuss it with Mr Russell. There is a meeting chaired by the Prime Minister in London today to discuss preparations for a no-deal Brexit. The First Minister of Wales and Scotland were both invited to attend that meeting. As I understand it, the First Minister of Wales is there, but the First Minister of Scotland is not. Why not? I find it staggering, Presiding Officer, that, with the horrendous situation that we find ourselves in around Brexit, the Conservatives have taken an opportunity to simply make a point like that. Mr Russell, as Mr Tomkins well knows from the exchanges in this chamber, is a perfectly adequate, far more than adequate, representative for the Scottish Government at that meeting. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with the UK Government regarding Brexit. Last week, the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Government, Business and Constitutional Relations met with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to discuss Brexit. The Prime Minister has said that she wants to give the devolved administrations an enhanced role in the next phase of the Brexit process. However, the UK Government continues to ignore the views of the Scottish Government. The votes of this Parliament are indeed the 62 per cent vote of the people of Scotland to remain in the EU. With the clock ticking down to exit day, the Prime Minister must start listening to people outside the Conservative Party and the European Union Party, abandon her damaging red lines, seek an extension to article 50 process and immediately rule out a no-deal outcome. I hear Mr Tomkins chunking from a sedentary position. Just a small point—this Government is getting on with the day job alongside Brexit, unlike the UK Government's. I thank the ministers for that response. Last week, the Prime Minister showed she was running scared of the verdict of the Scottish people. Is it not the case that the mandate for an alternative path to Scotland is cast iron? A majority of MSPs and Scottish MPs returned at the last two general elections support holding an independence referendum—an option that is endorsed by this Parliament with the manifesto on which this Government is elected. Does the Government agree that the people of Scotland should be in charge of their own future and not live at the whim and dictate of a hardline inflexible out-of-touch Tory Government? As Fulton MacGregor says, this Scottish Government was elected on a clear mandate that this Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against her will. This Parliament voted on 28 March 2017 in support of an independence referendum in light of Brexit. Brexit has been the consistent position of the Scottish Government that we will set out our views on the next steps for a future referendum on independence when there is clarity about the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. Sadly, as we all know, there remains no clarity over the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, even as time runs out before March 2019. However, what is clear is that Brexit changes everything utterly. Thank you very much to ask the Scottish Government when it next plans to meet Welsh Government ministers and what matters will be discussed. The Scottish Government routinely engages with counterparts in the Welsh Government on a range of businesses at both official and ministerial levels. Last week, the First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations met with Mark Drakeford to discuss Brexit matters. On 28 January, the Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations spoke to Dewey James at the time concerning electoral law issues. Earlier this week, the Minister for Europe, Migration and International Development met with the Welsh Government Council General. Tomorrow, the Lord Advocate and I will both meet with Mr Miles ahead of the next meeting of the ministerial forum on EU negotiations, which takes place in Edinburgh. I am grateful for that comprehensive reply. The minister will be aware that Welsh Cabinet ministers recently provided the National Assembly of Wales with comprehensive analysis of the devastating consequences of a no-deal Brexit for the economy and the people of Wales. Further to his reply to Mr Whiteman's question, is that an example that the Scottish ministers may be minded to follow? We have much in common with Welsh colleagues. Today, I understand that the Welsh Assembly is uniting behind motion considering, in detail, the impact of a no-deal Brexit—indeed, Brexit—and the catastrophe that it would be for Wales. We continue to share much common ground on that. With regard to the point that the member makes, as I indicated to Mr Whiteman, we are happy to take that request away and consider it. However, I think that it is important that we recognise that, as a Parliament, most of us have the catastrophe that a no-deal Brexit would be for Scotland. I can take a very brief supplementary question from Ms Gilruth, so within time. To ask the Scottish Government what the implications of Brexit are for Scotland, which voted 62 per cent to remain in the EU. The implications for Scotland of Brexit are extremely alarming, as the Government has detailed and the Parliament understands. All Brexit outcomes will be bad for Scotland, but the Prime Minister is now running down the clock to the most damaging of exits. The DUP voted to reopen the withdrawal agreement and amend the Northern Irish backstop, and the EU has categorically stated that the withdrawal agreement is not open for renegotiation. Does the minister agree that pursuing the impossible is simply running down the clock and risks a no-deal at the behest of Tory Brexit? That is fine. That is briefing up. No, no, no. Minister, please. Presiding Officer, I agree with Ms Gilruth. Last night, a majority of MPs for Scotland voted to extend article 50, rule out no-deal and to respect the overwhelming vote in Scotland to remain in the EU. The UK Government decided once again to ignore Scotland's democratic voice. The Scottish Government, however, will continue to do all that we can to protect Scotland's interests, and we urge the Prime Minister to extend the article 50 process to avoid the disaster of no-deal. Thank you very much. We now move on to the next set of questions in culture, tourism and external affairs. To ask the Scottish Government what impact UK Government immigration policy is having on Scotland's working population. Migration is vital to Scotland's population growth. Each year, for the next 25 years, all of Scotland's population growth is projected to come from migration. Therefore, the UK Government's commitment to cut net migration to the tens of thousands could seriously harm our economy. If implemented, Scotland's working age population is projected to decline by 4.5 per cent, a reduction of 150,000 people between 2016 and 2041. A Brexit-driven reduction in migration would see GDP in Scotland drop by an estimated 6.2 per cent by 2040, equivalent to a fall of almost £6.8 billion a year in GDP and £2 billion in government revenue. That is an unacceptable price for Scotland to pay and is why we need a migration policy tailored to Scotland's needs with more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Maureen Watt. I thank the minister for that answer. A NHS Grampian survey recently presented to Aberdeen City Health and Social Care Partnerships states that the risks not only to staffing but also medical supplies, accessing treatment, regulations and cross-border issues are high risk due to Brexit. That is compounded by the Home Office's stubborn refusal to engage with MSPs under our offices. Does the minister agree with me that the Home Office should stop treating MSPs and members of other devolved parliaments, such as second-class representatives, start engaging with us to resolve urgent immigration cases as soon as possible? Is it not time that the Westminster Government stopped using EU nationals and others as pawns in this game? Maureen Watt, I was a good point, but it was not brief enough. I am getting techy. Brexit could indeed have significant impacts on health and social care in Scotland with potentially serious consequences for the recruitment and retention of health and social care workers in Scotland. As Maureen Watt has raised, it also raises concerns in areas such as medicines, medical devices and clinical trials, access to future EU funding and the rights of Scottish citizens to access state-provided healthcare across the EU. On the point about correspondence, MSPs are understandably concerned about those issues and the impact on their constituents. I have met with the UK immigration minister Carling notes several times to highlight the Scottish Government's concerns and reiterated our willingness to work collaboratively to safeguard the interests of EU citizens in Scotland. However, despite committing to meaningful engagement, the Home Office continues to refuse to deal substantially with the concerns of Scottish ministers and MSPs on immigration cases. That is completely unacceptable. The UK Government has repeatedly committed publicly and privately to the full involvement of the devolved Administrations by so far, unfortunately, I have been frustrated by the quality of that engagement. Nevertheless, the Government is clear that it will do all it can to support EU citizens through this difficult time. I am happy to receive correspondence from MSPs to write minister to minister to the UK Government. I have done that for MSPs across the chamber. Willie Rennie briefly. I have concerns about the immigration policy, too, with sectors such as the fruit and veg farms in my constituency. The universities, the tourism industry are already being impacted by a drop in the number of workers in Scotland. I do not support the devolution of immigration policy as those problems are not unique to Scotland. What actual and practical steps has the minister taken to influence UK Government policy? Just under a year ago, we presented a substantial paper to the Scottish Parliament on how we take practical steps and seek to influence UK policy. We have written repeatedly to UK Government ministers about our concerns with the MAC report and the white paper. We have done that in person. We are going to be submitting to the consultation from the Migration Advisory Committee on the Shorties Occupation List. Across every area of Government that we can, we are working to influence UK Government policymaking and to work with stakeholders across business who are deeply concerned about what is in the white paper, particularly the proposed salary threshold. I say to Willie Rennie and I say this in good faith that we are proposing in terms of flexibility in the UK system is taking a solution-focused approach in response to what is being proposed in the UK Government's white paper. He said that, in his constituency—this is the case for many across Scotland—that key sectors are going to be affected by what is being proposed in the UK Government's white paper. I say to Willie Rennie, come and meet with me, engage with us as a Government and, together, let's be solution-focused for the benefit of your constituents and the common good of Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what it's doing to maximise the benefits of Robert Burns' legacy in the south Scotland region. The Scottish Government wants to maximise the social, cultural and economic benefits of Robert Burns' rich legacy for the whole of Scotland and, through events Scotland, we provided 30,000 to the big burns supper in Dumfries as part of Scotland's winter festivals. As part of this work, we have commissioned the Centre for Robert Burns studies at the University of Glasgow to produce a report that will help us to understand the impact of burns on the Scottish economy and associated prospectus for driving inclusive growth. We expect that the report's findings will be helpful in ensuring that the enduring legacy of burns can help to accrue on-going benefit for Ayrshire, Dumfries, the wider south of Scotland region and indeed the country as a whole. I thank the minister for that answer, and I would highly recommend the big burns supper to all members who run until Sunday. The minister will be familiar with the family home that was built by Burns in 1788. The future of Ellisland is very much at the crossroads, and the trustees have developed proposals not only to save Ellisland but to transform it as a major attraction. Will the minister take the opportunity to find out more about the proposals, which are exciting plans, and hopefully meet with the trustees to discuss how the Scottish Government may be able to assist in delivering a viable long-term future for Ellisland farm? I understand that representatives of Ellisland have recently met with Historic Environment Scotland officials to discuss the trust plans for developing Ellisland, and if they have not done so already, I would encourage them to continue their dialogue with Historic Environment Scotland to ensure that the vital part of Scotland's history and heritage is preserved for future generations. I want to take supplementaries, but they must be brief. I have Finlay Carson and I take Joan McAlpine. As the Presiding Officer will know, the south-west 300 is a stunning 300-mile drive with awesome coastline hills, glens, forests and locks and abundant history, which much rivals have publicised in North Coast 500. The Burns country run is 160 miles and dedicated to showcasing the many locations that are associated with Burns. Those routes have huge potential— No, that is not brief. Get your questioning. What will the Scottish Government do to quantify the potential and what support will it give to the Burns route? The Scottish Government is committed to investment and tourism in the south of Scotland. For example, there has been a half million visit Scotland marketing campaign, half a million of south of Scotland capital funding and 2.5 million for the development of facility in Gaelishields, as well as investment in the David Livingston centre in Blantair. I thank Finlay Carson for raising the point on the proposed route and would be happy to receive more details on that if he wishes to provide that in writing. The cabinet secretary, if rather the minister, apologies. Join me in welcoming the purchase of the historic globe in Dumfries, one of the bar's favourite houses, by Professor David Thompson and his wife Teresa Churchill on Annandale distillery. I am delighted to report that the investment in the historic inn is already apparent during the Big Burns upper. I invite the minister and the cabinet secretary to take the opportunity to visit again in the near future. I thank John McAlpine for that question and indeed welcome the investment that has been made and congratulate all involved. I would be happy to receive invitation as part of our planning for the winter festivals next year and thank her for that offer. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason its external affairs budget increased by 52 per cent from 2017-18 to 2019-20. Between 2017-18 and 2018-19, the external affairs budget increased by £1.5 million to support our expanded external presence in Brussels, Canada and Paris. All the increase of £6.7 million in the 2019-20 draft budget is due entirely to a change in the way that running costs, including staffing costs, are presented across the Scottish Government. Those were previously presented separately but are now included within ministerial portfolios at the request of this Parliament and its finance committee for transparency. There is therefore no net increase in this year's 2019-20 resource available for spending for external affairs. Reserved matters are excluded from the devolved competence of the Scottish ministers. This reservation is particularly important in the case of international relations. So ruled the Supreme Court in its unanimous judgment a month ago in the continuity bill case. What legal advice has the cabinet secretary taken to ensure that this increased budget is lawful? The Supreme Court judgment does not affect the Scottish Government's ability or determination to prepare for EU exit or continue our international work. Indeed, the UK Government and a whole variety of different agreements with us understand and support our international work. It is extremely small-minded of the Conservatives to think about limiting our ability to help our universities, our tourism sector and indeed our trade and economic activity by saying that everything has to be done within the confines of Scotland. I think that it is about time that we raise our horizons and certainly this Government has done and will continue to do and in relation to our activity. He needs to be quite clear that the Supreme Court judgment does not affect our ability to carry out our duties and our functions as good internationalists and good global citizens. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met Airbnb and what issues were discussed. Scottish Government officials last met Airbnb on 29 November 2018. The meeting discussed the regulation of short-term lets, including the stage 2 amendment to the planning bill regarding short-term holiday lets and noted the meeting redacted to remove personal details together with the notes of other meetings with Airbnb were published recently in response to a request under freedom of information and is available on the Scottish Government website. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Recent evidence released by the Scottish Government revealed that there were 2,200 Airbnb listings in Glasgow in July 2017, a 45 per cent increase in the last year. Shelter Scotland have expressed a concern that short-term lets may be exacerbating the existing housing crisis. Does the Scottish Government share that concern? What action is it taking to ensure that Glasgow's tourism industry is both sustainable and delivers for local communities? I think that the member makes a very important point, sustainability both for tourism but also for the housing market is really important. That is why in relation to short-term lets, I know that there is a debate currently happening in terms of the planning bill and I understand in relation to housing legislation as well, the short-terms letting working group is engaging with local authorities, I am sure that they are doing so with Glasgow but will make sure that Glasgow's situation is brought to their attention and engaging. I understand that Glasgow City Council regulations introduced in March 2017 have also had an impact, so their current powers that local authorities already have but in terms of looking at the overall picture and indeed the housing market there has to be an integrated look to this and I think that it is something that all of us will take a keen interest in. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support Scotland's festivals in 2019-20. Scotland is the proud home of a fusion of cultures, arts and creativity in reaching us all with festivals and events. Today, I am sure that everybody would want to join me in congratulating the Imaginate Festival on its 30th anniversary. Visit Scotland will have invested over £3 million across 109 cultural events and festivals this financial year, while Creative Scotland provided £485,000 to 18 festivals around Scotland in 2018. The Scottish Government's Expo fund has supported the Edinburgh festivals with over £21 million since 2008 and the current applications are being considered between 2018 and 2023. £5 million through the platform for excellence programme is supporting strategic projects across the internationally-claimed Edinburgh festivals as part of the Edinburgh and City regional deal. Donald Shaw, a leading figure of Celtic Connections, one of Scotland's foremost music festivals, recently warned that the added pier orchestra required to book QK musicians in EU member states following Brexit will put Scottish musicians at disadvantage. He also predicted new problems for musicians coming to Scotland. Does the Scottish Government share my concern over the detrimental impact of Brexit and the Scottish music sector? Of course, Celtic Connections is a hugely international festival. It, for the first time, has received £100,000 of festivals' expo funding. It truly is international. It is welcoming to musicians. They want to come here, but the UK's immigration white paper would drive a coach and horses through our music industry sector unless there can be changes made to ensure that there is no bureaucracy in terms of the visas. There is an issue about festivals wanting to book our musicians as well. We want to make sure that we remain a welcoming, inclusive country, and that extends to everybody, particularly including the many musicians that come. When we have senior leading figures in our cultural sector warning of the consequences of Brexit, which would be absolutely compounded by a no-deal Brexit that was accelerated by the farce that was Westminster's activities last night, we have to take them very seriously indeed. The cabinet secretary will be aware of recent reports of exploitative working practices within some major festivals. Will the cabinet secretary commit to frank discussions with festival organisers and relevant companies to ensure that that is not tolerated within the sector? The member makes a very important point. I have already done so with some festivals. I think that it is important that anybody in receipt of public money embraces the fair work agenda. I think that that is an improvement that everybody in the sector would want to see happening. We just have to make sure, in terms of their abilities, that they carry out what I think is a commitment to try and address this issue. Question 7, John Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support tourism, including business tourism, between Ireland and Scotland. Cabinet Secretary. Our national tourism agency visits Scotland actively promotes Scotland to visitors from Ireland. Our sixth largest tourism market, it undertakes a large range of marketing activities. Business tourism is one of the many reasons Irish visitors come to Scotland with a majority coming to visit family members. Last week in Dublin, I met with business and university interests to discuss Scottish and Irish connections and collaborative working and spoke to several tourism businesses that are interested in Scottish investment. If it was left to Mr Scott's colleague, Adam Tomkins, none of that would be happening. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for your answer. She will be aware that the First Minister announced that the Scottish Chamber of Commerce dinner in December will give £2 million of new funding over the next three years to Scottish chambers to promote business tourism and business development through local Scottish chambers of commerce. Can the cabinet secretary tell Parliament and my constituents at the Ayrshire Chamber of Commerce when that money might be available, as they are keen to further strengthen and grow already-established trade and particularly tourism links with Ireland? Cabinet secretary. I am delighted that the Scottish chambers of commerce are working internally, but also with the Scottish Government to encourage business tourism. Their links in terms of key sectors in the collaboration would be a great advantage in attracting business conferences and other activity here. In relation to spending, I would point out that we are facing a budget vote shortly. If the member is wanting us to invest in expanded investment in relation to chambers of commerce investment for exports or, indeed, any of the export area, helping to support the budget would be one way of doing it. Question 8, Sandra White. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Justice Scottish Government, what analysis has the culture secretary carried out regarding the impact of Brexit on the arts and creative sector in Scotland? Cabinet secretary. Leaving the EU would have significant wide-ranging negative impacts on Scotland's culture and creative sectors, including access to funding, trade, working internationally, access to skills and talent. Those impacts have been highlighted consistently in analysis undertaken by sectoral organisations and by the Scottish Government, including a recent Ernst and Young report. That is built on previous analysis, undertaken by Scottish public bodies in the sector. Indeed, in looking at the extension on the extent of EU funding received by cultural sector organisations, the work found that EU funding of at least £59 million was received by Scottish cultural organisations over the period 2007-16, demonstrating the significant importance of EU funding to those sectors. Sandra White, please. Thank you very much. I thank you for that answer. In Saturday, Cabinet secretary, I attended Celtic Connections and organised by Bemis, celebrating diversity and culture throughout Europe and throughout Scotland. Your answer obviously implicates that we could lose those types of cultural and international events. Will the cabinet secretary agree with me that that would be a great loss if it disappeared both culturally and financially to Glasgow and Scotland? The Bemis connections with Celtic Connections and their association has been a great success in recent years. A lot of that funding comes from the Scottish Government funding from our winter festivals, but there are events at Celtic Connections, which Donald Shore, the artistic director, has made clear. We would not have taken place had there not been collaboration in terms of EU funding opportunities. Therefore, it matters, and we have to remain an outward looking country. We have to welcome people, musicians, artists and others, to celebrate—and what better way to celebrate—the wonderful Celtic Connections, which has a period to go. I encourage anybody who has not been to go and visit and take part and buy tickets and support our artists. Thank you. That concludes portfolio questions. I apologise to Willie Coffey and Mark Griffin for failing to reach them. Try, though I did. I now must move on to the next item of business. I give members a moment to take their places.