 Bwysyf yn wrth wrth gweithgaredd maes i gweithio mai 2014 gydaedd Y Bwysyf yn y Yrfaith Gwlaffau oherwydd gyntaf oedd y proses. Mae'r phobl ddodol yn agosig ac ysbytym yn gwneud maes i ddodol. Good morning. We have apologies from Jamie McGriggur, and in his place today I'd like to welcome Gavin Brown to committee. We have apologies from Claire Adamson, and I'd like to welcome David Torrance to committee today. Welcome. The first item on the agenda is a decision to take agenda item 4 in private. Felly mae'n cymdeithasol iawn i ddim yn ei bod yn gweithio. Gweithwch iawn i ddim yn gweithio. Felly mae'n ddim yn gweithio sydd y brifoclwydau ar y papur TTIP sydd yn gweithio. Efallai. Yn gweithwch y tro cyfnodol, mae'n gweithwch yn cael ei ddweud. Felly mae'n gweithwch i gyd i gyd y tro cyfnodol. Gweithwch i'r Cymru, Fionia Hyslop, Cymru Cymru, Cymdeithasol Ieithiolol, Iain Donaldson, deputy director of international division of the Scottish Government. We welcome both of you to committee this morning. Cabinet Secretary, I believe that you have an opening statement. Yes, convener. Just a very short statement. Thank you for inviting me to address you on the 15-16 draft budget. Obviously, this past year has seen a great international interest in Scotland with major events. We have had commas games, the Ryder Cup just last weekend, the MTV Awards and, of course, all part of the Homecoming 2014 programme. We have had the independence referendum and, of course, the positive manner in which it was conducted and the unprecedented level of public participation in the debate has meant that all those events have enabled visitors and audiences around the world to see the best of Scotland. It is against that backdrop of increased international opportunities that have approached the 2015-16 budget allocations. In 2015-16, the European and External Affairs budget is expected to increase to £17.9 million. That increase is due largely to the technical transfer to programme spending of just over £1 million running costs for the Brussels office. That will allow increased scrutiny of the work of the Brussels office by this committee and brings the way that we fund the office into line with other overseas offices in Beijing and Washington. Last year, when I paired before you to discuss the budget, we agreed on the importance of increasing Scotland's profile and activity in Europe. We are therefore pleased that we have been able to embed the increases that we achieved in that area in the 14-15 budget into the 15-16 European relations budget. That means that we will be able to continue to expand our policy of seconding staff into European institutions, which we regard as a key way to build Scotland's influence in Europe. In addition, the major events line will also increase by £0.85 million. That funding is intended to support the work of Visit Scotland in Connection with the 2015 Scottish Open, being played at Gullin, and is part of the £1.2 million Scottish Government sponsorship for that event. The lion's share of the external affairs budget is the £9 million that will continue to be directed to helping the world's poorest countries in 2015-16. Scottish ministers continue our commitment to ensure that Scotland plays its part as a good global citizen. One of the ways that we do that is by our work on international development, and our commitment is clearly evidenced by our securing a doubling of the baseline budget from £4.5 million to £9 million between 2007-8 and 2011-12. Despite the difficult financial context, we will all be aware of that. We are committed to keeping the international development funding at this level for the duration of the spending review, and we will do so again in 2015-16. Our unique model means that we provide funding for Scottish NGOs to work in partnership with organisations in the developing world on our priority areas, particularly where Scotland has specific skills and expertise, for example in renewable energy. In addition, we will all work across our priority countries to focus on the key objective of poverty alleviation and the achievement of the millennium development goals and must adhere to the principles of the Paris Declaration for Unaid Effectiveness. In addition to our programmed international development work, the Scottish Government aims to respond where it can to international humanitarian emergencies and urgent appeals. Some of that money comes from my portfolio, but part of our work is also to support contributions to such emergencies from other parts of the Scottish budget. Most recently, that has helped to ensure Scottish Government contributions to the international fight against Ebola, and we continue to monitor the situation in West Africa closely. This year, I am pleased that I have been able to increase the international strategy and reputation line slightly. That budget supports international communications and marketing for all of the Scottish Government's priority countries, as well as the delivery of the Government's Pakistan and India plans and the area that the committee has been interested in previously. The budget has also been used to deepen relationships with key countries with whom we engage diplomatically and economically. Finally, I am pleased to have been able to maintain the level of funding for our overseas officers in China and North America. Our presence in those countries is a firm indication of the importance that we have placed on our relationship with those countries and the economic benefit that brings to Scotland. You will be aware that we want to make sure that Scotland is known as a good global citizen with much to contribute to the world. With that budget, we continue to ensure that contribution to promote Scotland's interests and identity at home and abroad, and that we contribute to delivering the Scottish Government's purpose and Scottish economic ambitions. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, for that very detailed and condensed contribution. I know that members across the committee have got a number of questions this morning, but I want to touch on something very quickly that you mentioned in your opening statement. It was about being a good global citizen and maintaining the international development budget and the priorities for that being one of the things that is facing us all is climate change, but if you could give us a wee bit more in-depth information on how you foresee the climate justice fund working, but also the progress that is being made towards the new Paris agreement in 2015 on the global climate agreement? A couple of points on that. Just to remind the committee that we have the international development fund, which focuses on a number of areas, which include, as part of its area, some projects, particularly in Malawi, dealing with energy and that particular area. MREEP is a very good example of one of the projects, and I understand the use of the minister when he visited Malawi. He saw that in practice. There is some very innovative work happening, for example, with the University of Strascoide in different models. We have, of course, separately the climate justice fund. I have said to the committee before that I was very keen when we established the climate justice fund that it would not be a top-slicing of the international development fund. It would be in addition to the international development fund. Scotland was one of, if not the first country in the world to have a climate justice fund, and that is then managed as part of Paul Wheelhouse's portfolio. However, we can work cross-government, because a number of the areas are, for example, in water—again, an area that Scotland has interests and expertise, but also on energy. In terms of the different areas that we are working on, we are focusing on the four countries in sub-Saharan Africa in relation to the climate justice fund, particularly Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia. Of course, there was a recent announcement on the climate justice fund to extend that for another £3 million. It is interesting in terms of what that means for what we can contribute. I talked about contributing as a good global citizen. Hamza Yousaf is just back from Geneva when he was discussing some areas, particularly in this aspect. There is a great of interest in what Scotland could contribute in this area and the models that we are using. My visit to Malawi, which now is a few years back, when I saw some of the energy projects in particular, is about very localised, sustainable areas. One of the things that we did on the visit this time round in Malawi at the beginning of the year was to bring together some of the different projects across Malawi so that they could see what each other are doing as well. A lot of what we are doing is sharing our expertise from here, but it is also about making sure that we have that sustainability as well. In terms of the EMRE project, we think that that has had a reach of about 20,000 in Malawi in terms of impact on people. The second part of your question was in relation to the global climate agreement. How is the Scottish Government involved in that? On the global climate agreement, of course. Paul Wheelhouse is a lead on that. He has recently been in Argentina. We hope again that he will take part in those areas. It is one of the areas where, in terms of our relationship with the United Kingdom Government in representation at some of the international global climate conferences, we play a key role. We are seeing us as a very supportive and productive partner in that because we are recognised as having that expertise. The fact that we have a world-leading climate change legislation and that our targets and our delivery compared to other countries are very strong. Obviously, with this week's announcement from China and the US, the agenda is continuing and pressing. When we have expertise within our country and when we have political leadership and when we can work with others, including the UK Government, in terms of some of those conferences, we will continue to do so. Again, perhaps that is an area if you have interests that it is not my portfolio or the budget that I am responsible for. One of the areas that committees have been interested in is how we work across the different portfolios to deliver on the objectives that are not just our objectives but clearly internationally as well. When I had my visit to Malawi, one of the pressing issues there was the impact of climate change and the impact that that has on the ability to grow food, the ability to maintain sustainable food sources and things. It was always very important that the two things were overlapped and helped each other out. Thank you and good morning, Deputy Secretary. I wonder if you could just clarify one or two things for me, please. It is in relation to the international relations and then I will go on to international development. In terms of international relations, you clearly point out that there is a real term cut of 8.6 per cent since 2010 and 2011. I was just wondering why we were specifically picking on those years rather than our current years to see whether we were on budget or not in terms of our current development. For example, there was a reduction in Pakistan and India marketing budgets. Did that cut make a difference? Are we on track or are we finding that that squeeze was unhelpful? How do you intend to develop that element? If you are comparing some of the international promotion budgets that I have explained to the committee before, some of it has been about the shifts between departments and responsibilities, as opposed to absolute. I have managed what I have said to you today about going forward, which we are looking at the 15-16 budget. I have managed to maintain that line, which I think bearing in mind the pressures that we have got in terms of the Scottish Government's budget over the peace. I think that that has been a significant achievement to maintain that budget. In terms of our different activity, I am quite comfortable about what we have managed to do. We have had our first ever ministerial visit to Pakistan this year. In terms of, again, that kind of opportunity to promote Scotland as part of the Commonwealth Games promotion. In terms of a different number of activities, some of those activities, as you know, are not just about what we do in Pakistan but also what we do to help to promote the Pakistan plan here, particularly business interests. We have had a business conference in June 2014, which was hosted in Glasgow by the Scottish Government, UKTI and the Pakistan Consulate, to highlight the opportunities for Scottish business. In terms of India, again, as part of our work there, a business networking reception was held in Delhi. Obviously, you know my keen interest in promotional Scotland, not just business but education, great deal of interest when I was in India, certainly. All those relationships are building. The tourism connections are very strong in terms of how we work, visit Scotland, work with the tourist operators in India about what we can promote Scotland's and Scotland's interests. I do not think that there has been a pressure in particular of what we have been able to do because of any reprofiling. When you compare our budget compared to other portfolios, one is much smaller, but the margins that we are talking about are very, very small indeed. One of the things that I think you might be interested in is how we are co-ordinating a lot of our messaging. Obviously, a lot of it is traditional media. Social media has become more important. However, one of the things that we did—and we will make sure that the committee gets copies of this—is because we had so many different international events taking place, because across the globe, the interests that people have in Scotland, we produced a suite of materials that I talked about in the different segments that we had, whether it was cultural life, skills and training, business, food and drink—all those areas where we had core messages that were whether you were directly employed by the Scottish Government or whether you were an ambassador in your own field, whether it is in business or whether it is in education. We could be using the opportunity of the world stage exposure that we were getting this year to help to promote. That is something that we will continue to do. Bear in mind that my international strategy, reputation and promotion budget is minuscule compared to some of the budgets that we have had for the Commonwealth Games, the Ryder Cup and all the big events that we have had this year. Bear in mind that even on Sunday night, we had 750 million people watching an event coming from Glasgow. We are managing to maximise our impact to reach. As the committee has been interested in before, one of the roles that I have is to try and leverage funding from across the Scottish Government in alignment with what we do. However, I do not feel that there is any pressure in the way that we use it. Yes, I would like more money in this area, but, quite frankly, the whole Government has got to be very careful about its funding, and it has been very tight, of course. That is exactly why I asked the question about how we are managing that fund, and even though it is a small fund, it becomes more crucial that we make sure that it is focused and directed and we maximise it. This is why I was wondering whether you had the information at hand or would be able to provide me with, is where are we with that fund so far, whether we are on target or not, and if we are on target, what are we actually doing to achieve those targets? How do we intend to develop that? I understand that we are going to look at new country plans, and that will indicate some direction in that, but in the meanwhile, I think that it is important that the little finance that is available is, in fact, focused, and if you cannot give me that, I am quite happy to receive it. I can give you some figures on this. For the level four spend on the international strategy and reputation line that you are interested in, the allocation for 15.16 is 1,666,000. That compares to last year 1,396,000. The bulk of that spend is on the line that you are interested in, which is the international communications and marketing budget. That is the source from those figures that I have given you. For 14.15, the spend there was £1.1 million. I am comfortable with what we are managing to satisfy the requirements for the promotion, as well as, obviously, we are going into a phase where I have explained previously that we are looking at different country plans in the international framework. The line in 14.15 was slightly down because of transfer to help to promote EU engagement last year, which was understandable, and I explained that previously to the committee. The other good news is that there is a rate increase from £120,000 to £500,000. Where will that additional resource come from? Is it going to come from other parts of your international development or elsewhere? Alex just explained that what we have managed to do is return the 15.16 figure on international strategy and reputation to the level that it was in 14.15. 14.15 had been slightly down because we funded a bit more in Europe to try to build up our capacity, particularly in activity there. I talked about the Nordic Baltic strategy and some activity there, so what we have managed to do is to rely on it. My budget goes up slightly, remember. If you look at it, it is going up slightly up to £17 million, so there is a bit of movement there. That's a word, yes. Willie Coffey. Thanks very much, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. You gave a very positive opening introduction there, which was very welcome. I noticed that the European strategy budget is being enhanced significantly. Could you give us a little bit more information about what that additional investment will bring us, particularly in relation to the work of the Brussels office, just what it will do? I see that one of the aims is to get a bigger return on the competitive EU funding programmes and so on. How will we get a sense of that at this committee and how successful that is being? It will be over the piece, because obviously a lot of the funding rounds are taking place as part of the multi-annual financial framework and the funding streams that are available now, but we are very keen to make sure that we can be as competitive as possible. A lot of our work, if you look at the Nordic Baltic strategy, some of the work that we are trying to do with Ireland in particular in different countries, is how we can maximise our access to those types of funds that are across, that require cross-country collaboration in different areas. Even on my other side of my portfolio in terms of culture, archaeology and heritage, there is some really interesting work that is there, creative industries. One of the reasons that we have particular interests in some of the Baltic states, they are very keen to work with us on creative industries and if we can identify projects, etc, before we even get to film in other areas. I was quite upfront in saying that the increase in the European budget was actually about a shift taking funding that would be out of the regular direct running costs of Government of the Brussels office and putting it into programme budget, which gives it greater visibility to committees in particular, puts it on the same funding model as the Beijing in Washington. I am not pretending that it is a massive increase in what it can do. Some of it is a technical transfer. However, some of it is. There is a modest increase of £115,000, particularly into the European relations area. Last year, we were looking to allocate funding for succumbents to the EU institutions. By and large generally, the UK as a whole is not as strong as it has been in previous years about making sure that we have experience within different administrations. I have on a permanent basis or a temporary basis. I know that it is something that David Lennon and William Higg have spoken about at the joint ministerial committees that we have. How do we increase that? How do we recruit and encourage more people to want to be able to be succonded into areas? How do we, whether it is Scotland or the UK Government, try to get more people to be working within the institutions? One of the things that we can start doing is to have succumbents into the presences, for example. That is an area that we have had a reasonable activity on, particularly around whether it is environment or marine, where we have areas of expertise. Those succumbents are very welcome, but they also give us a better insight in our staffing of what is going on. Again, it is part of that networking and influence over the longer term. I am not pretending that it is a massive increase in budget, but it is strategic. We have got a succumbent, for example, with Latvia now, obviously looking forward to the next presidency. It is different institutions. Sometimes it can be commissioned by the presidency. There has been a number of succumbents over recent years into work with the EU council presidencies. How successful we are in the competitive programmes? That is an issue that has come up to me over many years here with my friend colleague Helen Eadie. He used to do it regularly here, but how do we know that we are getting value for money and so on and so forth? Again, that is a cross-government, and it is probably a cross-paramount scrutiny on this. Certainly, in terms of some of the funding streams that is probably under the capital infrastructure, a lot of the EU funding is under in terms of what we would then maximise under that portfolio for scrutiny for the budgets, etc. Within each portfolio, we will be trying to maximise that. It is something that the committee itself can take an interest in. We want to benchmark against different countries and where we are, but a lot of that would not be part of my responsibilities as it would be another minister of currently Nicola Sturgeon. In terms of Scotland's contribution to Europe in terms of the skilled portfolio that we have particular strengths in, cabinet secretary, you have mentioned quite a few creative industries and life sciences, energy and so on. Do we look to Europe to see what we can learn from them to address perhaps particular skill shortages that we may have in it? I think particularly a one that is close to my heart, the software engineering. We always seem to be short of software engineers in Scotland. I do not know why, but I could guess why that is. Do we look around to see what the experience is at European level with particular strengths that those countries may have to see if we can adapt and use some of their ideas for recruitment and encouragement for our youngsters to take an interest in those types of professions? The Cabinet Secretary for Training and Youth and Women's Employment, Angela Constance, has had a number of visits, quite often with other delegations, S2C and others, and business interests and education interests to different countries to see what they are doing on employment aspects. That is certainly what we have been looking at. In terms of recruitment, you have to be a welcoming country in the first place, if you want to encourage people to come and work with you. That is an on-going issue. I know that the committee has taken an interest in it. You have to have wages levels that attract people but also quality of life in terms of attracting people into particular areas and industries. I was very struck when I was in Krakow, in terms of age profile. I was there in spring this year, and there were a lot of universities there. In terms of the capacity capability of the volume of particular sectors that we will need in the software engineering, there have been huge increases in the number of young people who are coming to study, live and then stay, and then are recruited by a number of companies, many of them in the areas that you are talking about, locating them precisely because they have a large pool of skilled labour in the areas that they are interested in. There are places that we can learn from in different areas. From our own perspective, we have Scotland Townsend Brussels, where we would host a number of areas. We would bring together commissioners. We have had commissioners address events in Scotland Townsend and the areas of our skills and expertise. That is also a chance to learn from others in the areas that we carry on. One of the big challenges, of course, is the post-study visa. I know that, in terms of where we are now in looking at the Smith commission and the interests that we have had and that the committee has had post-study work, if you look at the submissions that have been published from a number of places, you know that the universities are very keen on making sure that we have the brightest and the best, that they come here and stay here, and that they have an opportunity to contribute and pay taxes to our country. That is a live issue that will continue, but you have to be attractive in the first place. You have to want people to come here in the skilled areas that you have and to make sure that we have a working-age population that we need going forward. I just wanted to pick up and take that a bit further about the impact of immigration. You might have seen that the chamber of commerce yesterday issued a warning about some of the very Eurosceptic and anti-immigration noises that are coming from Westminster and the impact that would then have on the pool of skilled labour that is available to industry and business in Scotland, and I see that there has been a modest increase in the budget line for immigration, and I know that that was the budget line that replaced fresh talent. I wonder if you can maybe just give us some insight into why that budget line has been increased and what will it be used to achieve? One of the things that we do there is that we work with different areas. In terms of some of it is actually working, the budget then is transferred to other areas. For example, we work with Scottish Enterprise when we have businesses that want to come here, some of the issues and advice that they have if they want to bring in the business experience from other countries. In terms of the actual budget lines on it, the allocation for 1415 was £615,000, and that has been increased to £730,000. Again, some of this is about in the year, where we are dealing with very tight budgets and where we are dealing with hundreds of thousands, sometimes we have slight movements between the budgets. The bulk of the migration strategy, as I said, is allocated to delivery partners. Of that funding, £417,500 is transferred annually. We have got £150,000 that goes to local government finance to support the COSLA strategic migration partnership. A lot of good work, you will be aware, takes place with our local authority partners, helping local authorities to deal with immigration asylum seekers and support that they provide. As I mentioned, the resource goes to the Scottish Enterprise, and that goes to Scottish Enterprise sponsors. The £267,500 goes there to support talent Scotland's role in providing visa advice to workers relocating in Scotland. That used to be delivered by the Scottish Government, but it was transferred to Talent Scotland in April 2013, because clearly a lot of companies coming to invest in Scotland will be working with Scottish Enterprise and we felt that it was a better fit for that. The remaining £312,000 that we have is for migration policy development advice and in terms of developing our policy in this area. Clearly, there has been a lot of engagement across civic Scotland and our universities in this area, in particular, and we continue to work with them. The marginal change, again, is that we have tried to make sure that our European area was supported in the last year. I am very pleased with how we have managed to develop that long way to go, but we are still managing to provide what we have done in terms of that migration advice. That is the areas that we do it, but the two main areas, business for incoming, workers coming to help to support our businesses and local authorities in relation to asylum seekers and refugees. Rod Campbell with a supplementary on Willie Coffey's questions, then Hans-Alla is coming in after that. If we could wind it back slightly to the European strategy, but obviously we have a morning, sorry, cabinet secretary, sorry for the whole that bit. If we could just wind that back slightly. The European strategy budget has obviously increased quite substantially over the last couple of years. You have explained some of the reasoning for that. Last year, I called discussions about succumbent of staff to European institutions. Can you give us an indication as to how much of the budget is being spent on succumbent of staff? In terms of that level, we reckon that for 15, 16, we think that 300,000 would allow us to have succondant posts. For 14, 15, it was 200,000 and currently in terms of succumbents. Remember, succumbents might not be cleanly financial year to financial year. It is when it suits the organisations and institutions. We have got DG climate, DG marine and environment, and also the Latvian presidency and the IAEA. That is obviously a difficult one to say, but how do we measure the success of that succumbent? You can measure it by where we are now and what we have not done. One of the challenges for the UK Government and its European relations is that it is not as well connected as other countries are. Other countries have been very strong over decades of building up the capacity and capability. One of the lessons from when I was in Poland is that they have a whole college that is aimed at making sure that the brightest and best who are interested in careers in the institutions in Europe are supported and trained and well placed. Although, when people then work for those institutions, they are working for the institutions, but knowledge and understanding of your own country can bring into that. It is one of the areas that the UK Government has acknowledged over decades. I am not particularly blaming the UK Government, but it has fallen behind over decades. The price of it is not so much how much you have to pay to start people. A lot of people are starting on their careers. They are young professionals within the civil service in different areas, but it is over the piece, over decades, you are building up that experience. What we are finding now and what the concern of the UK Government is now is that, at senior levels, within the different institutions, there are not as many people who have come from a UK background than previously been the case. The value of it is not special pleading. They are there to serve the presidency. It is the knowledge and part of that development of one relationship that can come good in future years and be helpful. You are not trying to unduly influence for selfish reasons clearly, but you are seconded. You have to work professionally for the institution that you have been seconded to. However, it is part of that, making sure that people get the skills and experience that will serve them well in future years. However, it is also a country that will help us for a key point when we are trying to get our message across to people to understand where we are coming from. If we have people at a senior level across the institutions that know of Scotland and know of our background and our interests, and it is what other countries clearly see as in their interests to do, we are playing a catch-up on that. That is from the UK wide. A small budget that we have and smaller numbers, we still think that it is important to have that experience. That is why we are doing this comment. It is not one of the things that you will value in pensioning pens or results of what is achieved. Remember that they are serving the institutions. We have the balance right to the freezing of expenditure in North America and China. Is it simply down to a question of priorities? I will probably refer you back to one of the questions that I had about how you measure our competitive for EU funding and EU competitiveness. We have to engage where the access of the funding is so important for us in many different areas across the piece. We have to make sure that we have the capacity capability to maximise on access to whether it is the different funding or influence negotiations where we can and where we have interests. Clearly this week, councils are happening all the time. Unfortunately, you saw the experience this week by Richard Lochhead, who is now the longest-serving fisheries minister compared to any of the 20 member states seven years, not being able to speak or contribute to the fisheries council. The UK Secretary of State was replaced by a Lord who has little experience or knowledge or understanding. All those aspects such as supporting council meetings and supporting our work for trying to achieve funding are important. I know that this will be an area that the committee will come back to in its forward work plan. A lot of the work that we do in Brussels is about institution and governmental. A lot of the work that we achieve in China and the US is not directly as a result of the small but very effective team that we have in these countries from the Government. It is how we work with our partners in SDI, Scottish Enterprise, Visit Scotland. Again, it is part of how we maximise that. A lot of the resource that is in people that helps us to achieve the jobs and the tourist numbers are delivered by other agencies, whereas the issue with Brussels in particular is that it is very important that we as a Government have a direct role and influence. That probably explains the different issues around where the funding for people is, as opposed to funding for advertising or communications. I am going back to international strategy and the welcome increase of 267,000 allocations. I am wondering whether that allocation actually enhanced the engagement with Pakistan in India, and if so, how would that happen? For the sake of repetition, I told you that we funded business networking receptions in India. We promoted business conferences for Pakistan in June this year, supported by different agencies. How do we use that funding? We use it for... To use the increase. What other value are you going to bring to the table in terms of the additional resource? We are currently planning what we will do over the next year in terms of whether it will involve or not ministerial led delegations in terms of looking at refreshing the different plans. Clearly, the budget should follow what your policy and your plan is, rather than saying, okay, that's the budget and we determine now what another minister perhaps the use of might want to do in India and Pakistan over the next year. You will give me an indication of what else you are proposing or thinking of in developing this? Well, that's part of... I've already told the committee that we're looking at our India and Pakistan plan. I think it's important that we actually follow what our proposals are. I'm not cutting it. That's a good point. No, that's helpful. I won't press you on that one anymore. That is helpful. The other thing was, of course, how we're engaging with North America and the US in Canada. I'm just wondering, are there any new benchmarks we're going to establish on the work that we're doing there? After all, the budget... I know it's still a freeze on any increase, but I'm just wondering what new elements are we going to try and introduce and to enhance our engagement with the North American cousiness? I think that one of the major developments that we're looking at is how we work across the Americas. Obviously, there's particular interest in areas that are particularly in South America that we've got interest in. For example, the SDI has opened an office in Rio. Brazil is very interested in Scotland in lots of different ways as well, particularly around the World Cup. It's got the Olympics. I have met on a number of occasions incoming delegations from Brazil that are very interested in how they can maximise the cultural contribution of having major events. There have been strong attendance, for example at the culture summit that we had. We've had one after the London Olympics and one after the Commonwealth Games this year. We're building up those links. Oil and gas are clearly very important, and whisky aspects as well in terms of our exporting. If you say, well, what we'll see is a change in development, of course, it's making the most of our US areas. We've seen a big increase in investment from the US. We've seen that in inward investment, a very strong year. Again, the report shows that Scotland outside London has been the strongest in pulling in inward investment. It's still a very strong market for us, and we'll continue with our partners, as I said, to develop that. However, if you're looking about where we're going in different directions, how we can best do that and co-ordinate it across the piece. One of the areas in terms of what we can help to facilitate, and we've seen that in Canada, is much closer to working between our agencies, Visit Scotland, SDI and the Scottish Government in terms of our work in Toronto, in terms of our allocation there. Of course, if you look at how we measure that, this year's Scotland week was the best ever in terms of bringing jobs and investment announcements. We're made over 1,000 jobs being announced from the US, so that's a strong relationship. However, there are opportunities elsewhere, and that's why in terms of what I've charged our North America team to look at, is to look at yet an America's work, which would also then allow us to support activity elsewhere. Clearly, in terms of the work of Paul Wheelhouse recently in Argentina, yes, it was about energy climate change area, but he also embarked on a number of visits that also helped to develop some of activity there. That brings me on to my next question nicely, cabinet secretary. In regards to jobs and employment, one of the things that I'm noticing in my constituency in Glasgow is that we're getting a lot of contractors bringing people from overseas to do work in Scotland, whereas our own youngsters are not getting those opportunities. Now, I don't know whether this is a cost element or whether it's an agreement internationally in terms of bringing people over, but in terms of immigration support and advice, I'm also noticing that a lot of our constituents are suffering due to the UK policy rather than Scottish policy. How can we ease that difficult period for residents who are living in Scotland just now who have immigration issues? Will this budget actually cater for some of that in terms of advice and stability for families, or is that not going to be included in that? It's very challenging for the Scottish Government in the budget that we have to continually have to fund mitigation of the worst problems of UK Government policy. That's a pressure. You see it in welfare, you see it in other areas. I think that our best work has been with local authorities, because it's in communities. You talk about your own constituency. Where there are people who have issues and their concerns being as local as possible is really important to try and support that. Last night, I met the convener. We were both at the King's Theatre, where British Red Cross was sponsoring the kite runner for a great performance, but they were linking it with the issues for people who have fled very difficult situations. That was the organisation that brought people together, bringing people together, reuniting families who have been separated by war or by real severe issues. It was an opportunity for them to share the work that they have. That's another good example of partnership. Again, they were telling me about how they work with local authorities and different agencies in that area. I, as minister a long time ago, initiated the unaccompanied miners policy, which is really important for some of our young people who have come and ended up coming to this country under 16 and needing support. Yes, that's an important area, but are you saying that I use this tiny budget to try and mitigate some of the kind of problems? It's just not possible. We can do as much as we can. You have a point about young people and jobs. Remember, you'll meet young people in your business, it's everybody's responsibility, whether it's as ministers but also as constituency MSPs to encourage local businesses to make young people their business. That's the programme to try and get as many local young people employed as possible. I'm sure that everybody in this room is trying to do that. Yes, just to finish off, in terms of employment, we actually see large organisations, people like the Scottish Government, for example, and others, who are actually using contracts to bring employers from overseas. The facts are here, and I can assure you that people are being employed here, whereas my constituents in Glasgow are finding it difficult to get those jobs. I'd be happy if you want to write to me showing the evidence that you have of that, and I'll be. I'd be very happy to do that. I'm slightly confused that the £730,000 on immigration advice, really, is how that's accessed. Is it money given elsewhere, or can the general public access any of this, is it worth? It's run, again, it's a transfer budget between, we give it to local finance who work with the costlet. It's one is the strategic migration partnership, it's very long-standing. I don't know if the committee has ever taken evidence from the strategic migration partnership but the committee is indicating yes. That's the partnership. We fund them. We don't, as the Government, do direct service delivery of support to individuals. We deal with strategy, policy, et cetera, in terms of working with individuals and families. That's done by people on the ground and local authorities. Some of that will be delivered themselves. Some of it might work in partnership with the likes of British Red Cross, it might be others, other agencies in this field. Is it a fruitful line of inquiry for the committee to explore what is actually happening on the ground with this kind of advice? I'll return to the point that Willie Coffey raised to begin with, if Helen Eadie is looking down on me just now, she wouldn't forgive me if I didn't. It's the question that Helen raised constantly was the funding programmes and how successful we are. I know that Helen, when I was in local government, was constantly raising with me some of the funds that were available and not coming into Scotland. When you were answering Willie Coffey's minister, you seemed to suggest that it was somebody else's department in terms of the question of how we measure the success or otherwise of the availability of European funding and whether or not that is being drawn down. How do we measure that and are we measuring it? We will measure clearly how much can be drawn down in different areas, but if you look at even one area, and of course Jimmy McGregor isn't here, but in terms of the cap funding, for example, and the Rural Affairs Committee will spend extensive time looking at what's happened in terms of the allocation of that and how obviously that's been negotiated at a total level and in those funding streams from within that. What you're asking is about the competitive funding streams which will come from individual areas, so it will be whether it's in terms of enterprise or in terms of horizon 2020, for example, which again this committee has taken an interest in. However, I would expect that that's part of what the education and learning director will look at is how competitive we've been. It's not just about looking at how it's also about not waiting until after the event just to measure how successful we've been. It's trying to be up front in trying to make sure that we're making the connections, particularly with small businesses in relation to horizon 2020 and our institutions, and preparing them to maximise their impact on what they can get. That again has been an area that I know that Michael Russell and the education area has been doing to maximise what we get from it. In terms of the monitoring of it across Government, it's something that I can undertake to come back to the committee and have a look about what I can provide you as a holistic collective. I think that's what I suspect the committee is getting at, because I can't give you detail of the individual, whether it's enterprise or the structural funds in particular, which is obviously, as I mentioned, in the capital infrastructure portfolio. I was mentioning how we, as a country, generally suspect, as opposed to drilling down to the detail of each and every one, but I think that that's a good piece of work that I'm happy to try to undertake. I'm not sure that, in terms of the maximum scale of it, it could be quite extensive, so I'll take an overview of your forbearance as to what it would be, maybe we could work, officials work with your clerks to work out what would be meaningful for you to be able to assess that, but some of that might be about how you, as a committee, talked to individual cabinet ministers about how they've maximised the European spend from their portfolio. You described this budget as a tiny budget, and perhaps on the grand scale it is, about £17.9 million is still a fair bit of money. I suppose that the obvious question is, what do we get for that? I do note that the Scottish Government budget document does talk about increasing the level and frequency of Scottish engagement with EU institutions, including through the deployment of staff, to advance our policy objectives, develop our expertise in European affairs, and increase our return on EU competitive funding programmes. It's really this question, the outcomes. If you look at, in terms of value for money, the Scottish Government talks about national outcomes in 50 indicators, and the indicators that are related to specifically this committee and this budget is to match the growth rates of small and independent EU countries by 2017. Increase exports improve Scotland's reputation. You've touched on improving Scotland's reputation, but I'm just wondering how we actually value or how we measure what the outcomes are in terms of this budget, what we're trying to achieve from this budget, and how do we know if we are achieving them? We mentioned figure of £17 million, clearly £9 million is on international development, which is not European funding or in that territory, it's quite separate. The £17 million also funds offices in Beijing and Washington. The European budget that you're talking about, let's remind ourselves, is £1.6 million. It's not a big budget in relation to the overall Scottish budget by any means. Therefore, what we're doing is focusing on the people and the staff and bringing it into programme so that you can see it's about people, it's about the advice that's provided. I was in Brussels on Friday and I met again our staff. A lot of them are supporting people from justice. For example, we've got a big issue about the European arrest warrants, opt-out, et cetera, around the justice pillars, advice that's provided, making sure that the UK knows the Scottish position that we're obviously, we have our own justice system, real pressures there. Not all of it's going to be about competitiveness in terms of funding, some of it's about policy issues and that's what this budget helps fund. So this budget is not directly funding. We can help support kind of experiencing competitive funding, tendering, et cetera. Most of the competitive funding resource will be in other portfolios for them to then allocate. Let's get this in perspective, £1.6 million for a European strategy and funding is not going to then co-ordinate all of the activity across the portfolios of what they're doing and for me to micromanage what Mike Russell is doing in his area or what John Swinney is doing in his area. I think your point however of trying to find a mechanism to communicate what we've done to date in terms of securing competitive funding and going forward is a good one. I'm saying with the resource that we've got you can't expect that small budget to somehow much as if you want to encourage the finance committee and the Parliament to give me far more money so I can be far more a managerial role in relation to other portfolios and their funding in Europe. I would welcome that but that's not where we are just now and we've got to be realistic about it so I think we've got to keep it in perspective how big this budget is. Is that not part of the problem in terms of trying to have some joined up government, joined up strategy and joined up approach? If there's funding out there through European funds and communities, local authorities, whoever in Scotland are not taking advantage of that funding and spread across all these different departments is that not actually the problem? Well it's been a problem for many decades and we're in a much better position than we've ever been before in coordinating and a lot of time I've spent in this committee over the last five years I've been in this position is explaining how we're better coordinating across government and part of the role of the staff that this budget supports is to make sure that within the different portfolios across government they have a far more European international perspective, that they grow their skills and capacity and be able to either advise others to achieve funding because a lot of it comes from third parties in helping universities or indeed other people to maximise the funding opportunities they can get, some of it is from government trying to get that. I'll give you an example for my own portfolio. One of the things that we're doing with Creative Scotland is we're helping to make sure that there's a funded position to maximise European funding where you've got creative Europe and the media programmes have actually increased one of the few ones where there's more opportunities so we can do that but in terms therefore of how you either measure it or indeed coordinate it one of the things we do is you know we have again it's about internal succumbents so we have people from justice or indeed an education or other areas who are succonded within the Scottish Government to the Brussels office and some of that's funded from my budget some of it I'm encouraging as much funded from other portfolios as well to get and build up that experience to become so the whole of government becomes more European in its approach and yes we are much better in coordination in terms of what we do energy climate change is a very good area in terms of the strong area of participation particularly environment councils and how we can influence things so we're in a much stronger position than we've been in the past I'd like to be far more a stronger position but remember we are a devolved administration and there are limits to what we can do in influence and one of the things that whoever's strong our work at official level is unless as ministers you can influence policy and be guaranteed to be guaranteed to have an influence in policy that's very difficult indeed we've tried under the last Scotland bill to try and get a better representation for Scotland in Europe in terms of what we can influence it's on a grace and favour basis there's a you know we have a memorandum of understanding where you know we were given assurances that yes we would be able to attend and that ministers UK ministers should look favourably in our contribution that is not happening in the way it should so therefore you know remember we are you know we will maximise what we can do as being a devolved administration but there are challenges and any support this committee can give me either within my influence across the Scottish government or indeed with the UK government to give us a bit of a stronger guarantee of what we can do in terms of Europe will help make more of what make more of this for saying that with this budget that there is there is nothing really that you can measure to say I mean you know let's let's look at the china division £400,000 what is it we're actually getting for that the 750,000 pounds north american strategy i know that's not like one of the bigger picture but are we really saying that there is you know for this budget it's 17 almost 18 million pounds that there is no measurable outcomes that go in place that say that's what we're going to get this year for this budget of course not i'm saying is europe's more challenging because going back to rod rod Campbell's point it is about how we maximise our influence on the on the institutions it is more government to government it is more about how we can maximise the different departments and what within the Scottish government and what they can achieve within your working with civic society businesses etc the differences i think with us and china of course we mean in terms of the outcomes you talked about outcomes the china plan that again i've you know i think i've given evidence to this committee in recent times when we launched the new china plan is specifically to do what you're asking is to provide benchmarks and outcomes i know the cross party group on china for example i've just responded to them i'll make sure a copy comes if it hasn't already done so to this committee they were asking about how what progress has been made on the outcomes that we've set it for the china plan and this good progress being made in terms of exactly the tangible measures that you're looking at in terms of either inward number of students coming in terms of the business activity that we've been involved in how many businesses a huge increase in the number of businesses that we're supporting in china that's the outcome based aspect that you're looking for that is most evident in the china plan all i'm saying is that there's a far more it's a far more complex issue of how you measure the input and success on on access to european funding for brussels than it is for china and the us and it's cross-government and the us and it's cross-government gavin brown morning cabinet secretary um just a follow-up question firstly on the european strategy obviously the cash change to that is 1.17 million and you said in your introduction some of that is a technical transfer i think those are the words you use and then some of it is an actual increase in funding in terms of the breakdown of the one point one seven are you able to just tell us tell us how much of it is is a technical transfer and how much of it could be deemed to be an increase in funding yes i can give you some indication of that um the so although the the budget there's an increase um there it doesn't reflect the additional spend on e-race sort of and this is because one million and 49 000 which is the estimated cost of running the brussels office will for the first time be included in programme spend and previously it was a direct running cost within government now that that's the same that's the same basis we do washington beijing i'm trying to be i'd like to say i've got lots of more money to do more things in europe all i'm saying is we're trying to be more transparent about how we actually fund things but the biggest impact is from staff and that's obviously um you know whether it's the comments or whether it's um different areas that's why we're keen to to work on that and it's not even just um staff that are funded by this office we also try and encourage funded positions from other departments as well as i've just explained to alex railing a couple of members asked it also about the international development budget line um the spice paper given to the committee in advance the meeting it says this budget line has been frozen at nine million pounds for the sixth consecutive year in 2015-16 is that is that correct yes which i think is a major achievement bearing in mind the pressures that we have elsewhere when we came into government the there was a budget of three million in seven eight it was four point five and this government had increased it um and that's a pressure because in order to maintain even to maintain that level in an area where i've had reductions across i've got the kind of a broader portfolio um we've we've been determined to to maintain it at that level and the spice paper goes on to say i mean their calculation though it is between 2010 and 11 and the current budget that would be at eight point six percent real terms cut i mean it do you accept that figure um the real terms impact you know if you've got a frozen line which we've had across many of the portfolio lines of course that's a real term that's the problem we've got the scottish government budget if you take the scottish government's budget of course in terms of real terms that has an impact um you know so you know you know in terms of we have the the allocation of the scottish block from the west minister government that has been severely challenging um in a number of areas and we've just worked very hard to try and relatively protect um barriers that are important to us and the international development fund is one of them so but you accept the figure i mean you're not you wouldn't but i'm just a simple question is do you do you don't know i can give you the calculations and what the real terms impact is of that i'm happy to return with the arithmetic of that to to okay in terms of so in terms of then do you speak who decides the ee a budget obviously presumably the cabinet secretary says here is your your budget cabinet secretary in terms of the budget lines within ee a whether it's international relations or anything else is that your decision or is that the cabinet is that john swinney's decision as well or how does that all right well i mean we as you know we run a collective cabinet and we all agree all the decisions that we make and i obviousy can make recommendations and allocations of what i want to see within my own budget but i i i would like to emphasise that in relation to the international development fund budget it's one of the areas that you know i predecessors before us and the administration felt strongly about that fund and i can tell you that ministers across government and in cabinet are very um are very positive in supporting that budget where we can and as i said not it's not just the international development fund remember climate justice fund we've managed to secure funding from other parts of government and on top of that we've managed in terms of humanitarian aid to secure funding from health or different other areas so although you're although the what you were sensible saying is the idf line has been frozen it doesn't mean that we haven't had additional spend in that areas i've just been very effective of working with my colleagues across government to you know to pull that in okay but have you have you personally at any time in the last five years pushed for the international development not to have a real terms cut well you just say across our portfolio or portfolios had real terms reductions i mean there's very few parts of my portfolios not had over the piece in terms of challenges we've just been very effective how we've deployed it so you know in terms of the the allocation of course i'd like to have an increase in that area but it would be an expense of other areas and you know it's like corrie even even the european strategy one of the things i did as part of my european work was to be with commissioner peabogs who used to be the energy commissioner then had been the international development talking about what we were doing in malawi and the and how we went about working with ngos so you can actually use other parts of your budget to maximise what you're doing with the international development fund budget and also with external partners as well so you know it's about maximising the spend so yes would i like to have a Scottish government budget that's bigger that would allow us to expand the international development fund yes if this that might be an argument this committee wants to make but you know i have hopefully in over the years that i've been coming to this committee and reporting on what we're doing in this area is don't assume that a nine million budget is always spend in terms of areas related to international development it's actually more the actual spend is more than what's in the budget line would say so okay well my last question then is this how do you basically said your hands were tied we couldn't have done more than the nine million over the last five years how do you square that though with another part of the spice paper page two which says during the financial years 2010 11 2011 12 and 2012 13 there was a consistent underspend within the ea budget of around 1.5 million pounds a year in terms of areas of new managing budgets a lot of it is we have programme budgets where we have to have drawdown of funding now by and large we try and make sure that we're making the most of that but that can then move from year to year in relation to you know you have three years we're now moving to and that's one of the reasons actually we're moving to more stable three-year funding in relation to some of the programmes for the international development but some of that has been because not all of it is drawn down by the organisations at the time during that financial year but you can maximize i mean for example we have a programme with sport relief which is match funding which we have contributed and we've actually done an increase to our spend in these areas by it's a match funding 50 50 so though we will put one million in and that's match i think the level and the sport relief one is is two and a half million so we've actually managed to make our budget go further by partnering with different different bodies that's a very good example of it and so that's a very you know if you take that in terms of your real terms reduction in terms of having a frozen budget that frozen budget is one that other people in the sector particularly NGOs are very pleased with managed to you to keep and maintain when other other lines are are being reduced and not only that we've introduced the climate justice fund and we've managed to work with partners like sport relief and when you're talking about two and a half million in terms of what we managed to leverage in that partnership relative to a nine million budget i think that's effective management of that budget Finally cabinet secretary to just bring all of this together one last quick question is how much of an impact on all of the work that the Scottish Government does and all of its budgets and all of its match funding would an in and out referendum in Europe how much trouble would that give this Scottish Government? I think it might be the billion dollar question in terms of the proposal I have said to this committee before in terms of my visits whether it's in America or further afield or indeed in Europe and European capitals the in and out referendum has more concern than anything that's happened today in terms of constitutional change in Scotland and it is very important in terms of jobs and services that we have you know we have a continued membership of the European Union it doesn't mean that Europe doesn't need to be changed or reformed and I've published in August which again I've talked to the committee about our programme and suggestions for reform we think reform can take place from within the current treaties that they don't need change I've seen evidence and you'll have seen evidence of the balance of competences review that we are taking place taking part in along with the UK Government has asked us to take part in that and if you look at the evidence from that the vast majority of that evidence shows you that you can have reform without requiring for treaty change but I hope that everybody will work very hard to ensure that the UK Government if there should be a referendum ensures that we continue membership and quite clearly I think it's the interests particularly our exporting base the jobs the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are dependent on EU exports in terms of making sure that our place is there I think it's absolutely as the as the deputy First Minister set out that should there be any in out referendum in the future that that would not be actioned if one of the family of nations i.e. Scotland voted to remain in Europe and I'm very pleased that over the piece you've seen it and engaged in informed electorate increasingly in Scotland recognizing that that continued membership is the right thing to do I would add that I've been speaking to some of my colleagues in Ireland and Wales who have the exact same fears too cabinet secretary can I thank you for your time at committee this morning as usual we went over time a wee bit with your contributions but we always welcome that we always know you're very flexible in that point of view and delighted to have you back at committee and hope to see you again I'm going to suspend committee briefly for five minutes for a quick comfort break if people can be back in their seats by 10 30 that would be excellent thank you in the external relations committee our next agenda item is consideration of the brussel's bulletin which you have in your papers I'd like to invite members to make any comment questions on the brussel's bulletin Rod Campbell could I just comment is really was a comment more than a question really on the the poverty and social exclusion section under health sport and social affairs at the kind of quite frightening statistics 122.6 million in the year we're at risk of poverty or social exclusion but unfortunately what that paragraph doesn't really move on to is to say what steps are being taken to alleviate that but it's a comment more than a question. Okay is it something you want to investigate? Well I suppose it's a general question I'd be interested in really what all the institutions in the European Union are proposing to do about those kind of fairly frightening figures. Okay I think there's some work on in the year of 2020 strategy on that so maybe we have to have a look at that at another time yeah. I made a comment about colour the last meeting are we just using up the stationary that we have or is nobody bothered to note the comment that had made to try and save the planet and not use colour? Has somebody got a comment for that? I think it's the format the parliament of obviously. What we want to do is make sure our things are interesting and eye catching and easy to read. So it's okay to use the planet's resources and extra money we're not impressing anybody this is just an internal paper show look is this an issue or is I mean. We can do it in black and white the next round. Please I'd appreciate that. Okay Willie Coffey. Come back to that issue that Rod Campbell raised there on the poverty issue if you look at some of the figures they're actually pretty frightening. In 2010 according to European Union's own stats there were 80 million people in their terminology at risk of living in poverty and social exclusion now it's 122 million but the European Union target according to a European Union document I'm looking at here is to reduce by 20 million over the next six years. It hardly seems ambitious that given the extent of the problem. I'm not absolutely certain what our role in this might be but I'm certainly interested in it and seeing what we might be able to do as a committee to get some kind of handle on this. I mean I know that European Union has strategies and initiatives to try to tackle us but I get the sense that I would like to know a wee bit more in depth of what's going on what these initiatives actually may be and how and obviously how we can influence them a bit perhaps a bit greater than we have to date. If you look at the UK I mean it says there in your own paper in the Brussels bulletin that 24.8% of the population is at risk of poverty or social inclusion many of them will actually be in poverty never mind being at risk of it so even at some future stage perhaps at the committee if there's a broader paper on poverty issues and how that impacts in communities not just in Scotland but throughout the European Union I'd be very interested to do a wee bit more work on that. Yeah well it is embedded in the Europe 2020 strategy so it is something that we can we we you know ordinarily look at in the committee anyway but it's certainly maybe an area that we can focus in on to see what what what there is I don't know if there's any briefing there or anything out there that would help inform. I believe the poverty alliance have done some work on this so maybe we should get a hold of their briefing and have a look at that and see if it's an area then we can focus on in the committee. Yeah and further to that could be my we know food banks have expanded ridiculously you know in the UK I don't know what the position is in the European Union in relation to food banks whether the the same problem they are experiencing there and it's all obviously connected to that issue about poverty so I'd be very interested in any kind of perspective European perspective on this issue. Yeah well we can check see what the poverty alliance has got and take it from there. Thanks. Okay any other? Alec Rowley? I agree with that we will have points. In terms of employment skills and education if I can maybe pick up on a couple of points there there is this work related stress and the links to the economic downturn I mean I'd be interested in getting a link to that to that report. In this country one of the issues for example in the public sector is where where you've seen in some cases thousands and hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost but the same level of work continuing and therefore the pressures on those that are left in many senses although in the public sector by and large there's been very few compulsory redundancies people leaving are not being replaced people going on a voluntary redundancy basis and there is I think evidence anecdotal that I'm picking up that the level of work related stress and mental illness that is on the rise and there is this mental health first aid programme that I know the Scottish Government were supporting but I did ask a question whether there was any mental health first aid programmes within this establishment and elsewhere and there doesn't seem to be a lot of that so I would like to have a further look at this if I could and the other area is in terms of adult education and this online platform. I know that the TEC for example were involved in a number of European pilot projects around this and I just wonder what can the involvement have we got in Scotland in terms of this programme that's described here and the online platforms that are being used and could we get some some research done in terms of any programmes that we are involved in with in terms of adult education I'm sure many of our colleges are. Yeah I think we could look at some of that. Certainly we can look at what if the education committee's done any work on that as well and we should raise specifically with the education committee some of these issues that you've brought up. There's a debate this afternoon as you'll know on better workplace employee practices and the work that the trade unions have done for many years to alleviate and work stress whether it's you know the actual experience in your workplace or the experience of changes to jobs and things like that as well so there's probably a good bit of work here but it would be worthwhile having a look at that that report which is improvement of living and working conditions euro found. Yep any more Rod Campbell. This took in a general comment on the EU budget section and the UK government's additional payment. I'm assuming that in the next edition of the Brussels bulletin we'll get at least a European take on where they think we are with that now. When is the rebate not the rebate? When it's an abatement I think. Okay happy with the Brussels bulletin happy to ensure that our committees get sight of it raising specifically with the education committee some of the issues that Alec Rowley has suggested. Okay thank you very much that means we are moving on to agenda item 4 which we agree to take in private to suspend the committee briefly to allow us to go in private.