 Good morning, and welcome to this sixth meeting of 2015 of the European and External Relations Committee. Can I make the usual request that mobile phones are switched off, please? Agenda item 1, we have a very tight time scale this morning with two evidence sessions. Agenda item 1 this morning is the Scottish Government's EU engagement and its priorities, and I'd like to welcome back to committee cabinet secretary for culture in Europe and external affairs Fiona Hyslop. Good morning cabinet secretary. oes byddai'n gwirio amserol gan bobdangosion a'r newidau economi ac yn y cymdeithasol yn ychydigion yng ngyllidebeth yn y Iron Lafe. Ryszoutan am y cael ei gael i sut mae'n ei ddangosion. Rhyw g 겁en, Cymru. Rwy'n cael ei ddweud fflaenio. Rwy'n cael ei ddweud ychydigion i ddCR. Oedden nhw, mae gennych ein cymoedd iawn neu ein gwrsiau euchydigion. A principally mae'r rhaid i ddod i ddod i ddweud eu cyfodol, gyda i,еньwch ar dodionau gwahanol o ridershawdd a chweithio'r Unedirect ddawn, a hi yn ddiwethaf iawn i'r byw mwy o bwysig. Rydyn ni'n hollolio'r Unedirect yng Nghymru ac mae'r prysgwrs iawn i i'r peri ar y investment sydd i'r prinsgrinno ar gyfer ddechrau. Mae y prinsgrinno eich yourbwydd yma yn y prinsgrinno yma a'r prinsgrinno hefyd i'r prinsgrinno hefyd, a'r prinsgrinno fel yr yma yn gyfrifoedd i gyda'r own programme for government and Scotland's economic strategy, which was launched last week. We have committed to making substantial revisions to our own European Action Plan, first published in 2009, and I am grateful to members for meeting with Humsley Yousuf to feeding their own thoughts on what the plan needs to cover, and we aim to launch the plan on a digital platform at the end of the month. Later today, the First Minister and I will meet with the Latvian ambassador. The Latvian Government and the Latvian Government are also hosted a market awareness seminar in Edinburgh to explore the opportunity to deepen trade and investment links between our countries. The Latvian EU presidency has three overarching themes, a competitive Europe, a digital Europe and an engaged Europe, and I will leave that to the ambassador to explain the detail of those priorities. I just want to touch on a few particularly critical issues for Scotland. A key dossier for Scotland on competitive Europe is the European Fund for Strategic Investment, or what is known as the Younger package. A £21 billion loan guarantee fund that is seeking to leverage a total of €315 billion to kick-start growth through investment in shovel-ready projects across the European Union. The EU has already established a pipeline of projects and Scotland currently has four propositions on this lengthy list, covering renewable grid infrastructure, life sciences, innovation and smart cities. Work is on going to develop those proposals further and to better understand how the fund will work in practice. The general approach to the investment plan for Europe was agreed at Ecofin on Tuesday, and we are hoping that the European Council will agree the package in March of this year with the European Parliament signing it off in June. Following representations by Hamza Yousaf at the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe last week, the UK Government has now set up a cross government working group to help to ensure that Scotland can benefit from the funding package. On digital Europe, Scotland has ambitious goals to deliver world-class digital infrastructure, which will require hybrids of fixed fibre and mobile networks across Scotland, and meeting that aim will require continuing reform of the EU telecommunications market, including the abolition of roaming charges. It will also require EU funding and state-aid frameworks to be responsive and flexible enough to support investment in digital infrastructure that will enable all areas of Scotland to participate fully in digital Europe. On the third item of an engaged Europe, I know that the committee and many members of the public have taken a keen interest in the TTIP negotiations. I welcome the steps that the commission has taken to be more transparent on TTIP. I hope that we will go as far as possible to communicate and engage with citizens across Europe on the negotiations. Whatever the economic opportunities and challenges of TTIP for Scotland, it is essential that our and the public's concern about the impact of TTIP on the NHS is addressed. As you know, we have been pressing the UK Government and the European Commission on this point. We believe that the best way to address our concerns and those of the public is firstly to have an explicit exemption for the national health service and the agreement, and secondly to have absolute clarity that although the UK is the member state, any decisions that it takes in the context of TTIP such as opening up the NHS in England to more private providers in no way interferes with the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament's own devolved responsibilities. I look forward to the outcome of your committee's TTIP inquiry. The Scottish Government looks forward to engaging with Latvia for the remainder of its presidency. However, our overarching EU priority going forward will be to make a credible and proactive case for Scotland and the UK remaining in the EU. I hope that the committee and indeed this Parliament might also play a role in that. I have been heartened to see other Governments in the EU willing to make this case. The commitment of the Irish Government in particular has been consistent. A commitment to it again and aligned during my trip to Dublin last month. Since having the referendum debate, we have seen a substantially higher level of support for EU membership in Scotland than the rest of the UK. A recent Chatham House report found support in Scotland for remaining in the EU is now a remarkable 19 points higher than two years ago. That strong support for membership is why the Scottish Government believes that for the UK to leave the EU, it should require not just a majority across the whole UK but a majority in each constituent part of the UK in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—a double majority—and I would welcome the Parliament's support for that proposal. The Scottish Government has a clear view of the benefits of our EU membership, in particular the economic value of Scotland's EU membership is clear, and it places Scotland in the world's largest economy and trading area capable of competing with advanced economies across the globe. We have unimpeded access to 500 million consumers and it is a vital export market for Scottish firms, accounting for almost half of Scotland's international exports in 2013, and that is worth £12.9 billion each year. We welcome the social, cultural and economic benefits that migration from the EU delivers to Scotland's communities. The right of freedom of movement is also a huge benefit to Scots who move to live, study and work elsewhere in the EU. The best way to tell the positive story of EU membership is to tell the individual stories of people, of businesses and sector benefits. That is what the Scottish Government intends to do going forward. I would welcome the committee's support for that endeavour. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. It is very comprehensive and an overarching view of the work that the Government is doing. You mentioned in your opening remarks the Yunker's investment package, and you said that Minister Humzae Yousaf had raised some concerns around that. One of the topics that this committee keeps a watchful brief over is horizon 2020, and there has been some confusion around how that funding is being changed or less accessible for universities. I wonder if you have any detail to expand on that. Before I let you back in to answer that question, I congratulate the Scottish Government on signing the People's NHS pledge on TTIP for a specific exemption into the NHS services and the TTIP agreement. I have been working very closely with that organisation, and I have to say that they were very gladdened to see that not only did the Scottish Government sign up but that many parties across Parliament signed up because they view the NHS as one of our crown jewels and should be protected. Just on that last point, the committee has played an important role. The evidence sessions that you have had on TTIP have been very balanced and have shone a light on the area, and it has helped in terms of information education. Clearly, there are some political concerns, and it is important that the committee and the Parliament and the contribution of the Government have a voice from Scotland on that. Thank you for your contributions to that. The issue on the Yunker package is a serious one. Our understanding on the horizon 2020 was one of the few budget lines that had substantial increase. It was one that I know that, during my time in representing the Scottish Government and the GMC Europe, we were very insistent that the horizon 2020 was an important area for the UK Government and its negotiations on the budget to push very hard. We were pleased at the result that the horizon 2020 was in a strong position. Clearly, in the past, the Scottish universities in particular had achieved great results from similar packages in the past. What we understand to be happening is that the commission that identified the horizon 2020 is a source of £2.7 billion worth of reallocation to the EU budget underpinning the European Fund for Strategic Investment, the Yunker package. That is where the concerns are. If we lose out on the Yunker package, that means that we could have a double whammy. However, that is the negative view of things. If we take a more positive view of things, there is no reason why we cannot take the best advantage of the Yunker package now. In terms of what the UK has said to us and which would reflect Scotland as well, we have a failing mature market in terms of being able to generate private investment in addition to public investment in a number of different areas, in particular in infrastructure, compared to perhaps the rest of the UK. That would be in a reasonably advantageous position compared to elsewhere. However, that cannot be guaranteed, but it is really important that we identify some of those areas that we can work together on. If you think about the areas that I talked about—interconnectors—certainly the role of our academics in terms of some of the work that needs to be involved in that, in terms of how we link the islands to the mainland and facilitate expansion of renewable energy, that whole area is redolent with opportunity. Digital healthcare is an area where Scotland is in well place. It is one of the areas in terms of our Nordic plan, the Baltic-Nordic plan that we are putting together, where we have put together. That is, again, an interest with other countries there in terms of being able to do activity in that area. Innovation platform—again, if you look at the Scottish Economic Strategy launched just last week—innovation and, indeed, internationalisation are key parts of it. Smart cities—just yesterday, we met the Danish ambassador, one of the areas where I was in Copenhagen, was looking at liveable cities, how we can exchange knowledge information and right developments there. It is a challenge, undoubtedly. It is worth keeping very close monitoring on, and it is something that the committee may want to keep a close eye on as well. We want to speak to Scotland, Europa and get that side of the story as well, and try to put it all together and keep it on top of it. The Scottish Government's action plan on European engagement dates back to 2009, when Mike Russell was the minister. It is probably due refreshment. When the minister for Europe and international development spoke informally to the committee about the on-going process of refreshing the EU action plan, he suggested that it was too narrowly focused at the moment. I remember some time ago that I asked why agriculture was not covered, because, with the CAP being so important, it is taking up such an enormous amount of the budget, and the fact that agriculture is almost not important to Scotland seems odd that it is not covered in there. What do you consider the Scottish Government's main achievement in terms of its EU engagement under the action plan? A couple of things on that. You will recall, because Mr McGregor is a long-standing member of the committee, that, on an annual basis, I have provided an update on what we have done with the action plan, but also in wider areas. Continuously, there is probably the most intense activity and, indeed, the most regular attendance that councils have been on agriculture in particular, and, obviously, one of the key areas and some of the budget negotiations that went on in relation to that area. In particular, in relation to the action plan, it is right that we refresh it. We are going to do it in the context. We have now launched the Scottish economic strategy. Internationalisation is one of the four key areas, along with innovation and inclusive growth in the economic strategy. I am also taking forward the refresh of the international framework, which we have informed the committee about. The European action plan is as sweet as it should be, so it covers how we can take forward the programme for government of prosperity, inclusive growth, tackling inequalities and, thirdly, community empowerment and public services. The idea is to ensure that everything is aligned, which is what probably happened previously. Whether it is individual country plans or the European action plan would have appeared separately, as our Government developed it after 2007. What you will see now is a far more cohesive, joined-up approach, including the web-based approach. In my understanding, you are keen to ensure that there is practical help embedded in that, but that can be through the web-based approach that can point people. The specific points about achievements under the current EU action plan are marine energy. That is a key area where we have proved and secured leadership in that area, including in the European aspect. A very practical example of that resulted in the chairmanship of one of the work streams of the European Ocean Energy Forum for Scotland, which includes a number of member states and others. It has been working to recognise marine energy as a strategic technology and some of the emission reduction areas in that area. The Vanguard initiative is one where we have been working with other like-minded substates to deliver economic growth through development of enterprise-driven smart specialisation strategies. We have delivered to expert working groups in Brussels on smart manufacturing and on scoping on advanced manufacturing expertise, which Scotland has used as a mass area. Those of you who are working in the enterprise area will be familiar with. On climate change, particularly between 2011 and the meetings that we have had with climate change ministers from a range of countries, it has usually taken place in the margins of an environmental environment council. A very good and practical example of co-ordination with UK ministers. I have said that to the committee before. It is one of the areas where we have a good relationship in terms of how we can work in a co-ordinated factor. We also attended, as part of the UK delegation, the COP 19 in Warsaw in December 2013, giving access to European ministers co-ordination meetings. We hope to target climate change engagement in the run-up to the Paris climate summit in December. On the national reform programme, Scotland has submitted its own proposals on that in relation to the EU 2020 strategy and a response to the mid-term in that, which I think has been important. We have also signed memorandum with the French. I signed one of the memorandum myself. We also had it on education in relation to the Nordic Baltic policy statement. We have had far more intensive discussions and connections on the Nordic side, and I suppose that the other part is influenced. In your other aspects of the committee's work, you have heard from other countries where they have been looking at the point about a lot of the European policies, about networks, relationships and influence. We have provided the comments to the European Commission on rotating EU presidencies in the fields of climate change, fisheries management and environment, and a further member of staff has been seconded to the Latvian presidency. There is more than that, but that probably gives you an area in the areas that we have talked about, such as climate change and marine energy. One of the areas that has really been of political importance is the Opt out and Lisbon treaty on the justice issues. The committee and the Parliament has taken interest, but that has involved a great deal of activity and work, because it is a justice system. In fact, Paul Wheelhouse is at the European Council on justice and home affairs as we speak today and tomorrow. Will the refreshed action plan differ from the current version much? Your criticism is that it does not allow flexibility to move in other parts, because it was not that we were not working on agriculture absolutely, and I have given you a range of areas. What it will do is align better with the Scotland's economic strategy that was launched last week, and the international framework that will be launched at the end of the month. We will look at more about the Scottish place in Europe and our strategic priorities. We will look more probably in the plan about the influencing and engaging aspects, which you are seeing coming through in part of your evidence on Scotland's international engagement and those partnerships within the EU. Probably the areas that we will focus on will not necessarily be portfolio subjects, but how we approach things. Investing in our people and infrastructure is clearly on the skills training and use employment areas, for example, but as we have discussed on the UNCR package in relation to infrastructure. Fostering a culture of innovation is where we are pursuing the horizon 2020 funds in a whole variety of areas, whether it is marine climate change or agriculture. Thirdly, we are promoting inclusive growth and creating opportunity. That is probably more where there has to be a political, I think, a political realignment within Europe that they have to focus on jobs and recovery and what it makes a difference to people's lives. I think that you are starting to see that agenda better articulated under this commission than perhaps previously. Referring to the Scottish Government's union office, one thing that I would like to know is that, can you provide any examples of how the Scottish Government's Brussels office interacts with European institutions? How much does it cost to run? In terms of the interaction on a continual and regular basis, particularly with the power reps of the different countries, and referring to the Latvian presidency, we hosted a cultural event just last week, where the majority of the Latvian representatives were there. A whole range of issues, for example, when I visit, they have helped to engage the commission that we have met commissioners. One of the things that is worth reflecting is that immediately on the establishment of the new commission, we wrote to all the commissioners from a portfolio basis from cabinet secretaries. We have had very good follow-up, they are keen to follow up, and there will be a number of meetings set up between our cabinet secretaries and ministers with the European commissioners as the commission develops. With the commission itself, but also with other institutions and other countries that are there on different areas, we host events. We have had Margaret Burgess, for example, speak at one of the events on an international event on tenants and tenants rights. Again, that is something that is established by European institutions, where we participate. Sometimes we lead, but sometimes engagement. The role of the Brussels office is absolutely about facilitation, but engagement with the Scottish Government back home in relation to making sure that we maximise all the portfolio areas so that all the areas of government, whether it is education or whether it is on justice or whether it is on enterprise, can access the institutions that they have. In terms of costs, it is just over a million pounds in total, but it is absolutely vital that we do that. In fact, it is interesting that we have provided advice for other countries and other administrations looking to set up in Brussels as well, because it is really important to be there. Colin, do you want to say anything else on that? In terms of the office's role, it is formally part of the UK representation, so it has a very close working relationship with the UK and therefore works alongside them in council working groups and others to make sure that the particular Scottish issues are fully reflected in the UK line. In that context, it works directly with the institutions that the cabinet secretary mentioned, the marine energy work. That was led from the Brussels office, which, because of its presence on the spot, was able to use its ability to co-ordinate meetings with a member-state group of eight. It is a great facility and it works next to Scotland Europa in the same building, so that provides the opportunity for Scottish institutions, businesses and others to work directly with the Government. It is also very helpful to write in the centre looking across the square at the main commission building in the Burley Mon. That is a very good way to get access. I think that you have visited the Brussels office as a committee, haven't you? Lastly, finally, does the Scottish Government's European Union engagement, especially post referendum, dovetail with the United Kingdom's engagement in Brussels? I think that we are a bit more positive in terms of our outlook on you. We recognise the importance of reform and in terms of our position. Yes, it does dovetail, but of course the proposal for an in-out referendum, as the member will know, is not a position of the current UK Government. The position of proposal for an in-out referendum is one of the leader of the Conservative party and should it be re-elected, that is part of the proposal. Because it is not part of the UK Government's official policy, it allows more latitude for us to express our views, which I have done in terms of a more positive view about continuing EU membership. To reassure you, it makes more sense, and I have said this repeatedly, that there is probably more co-ordination co-operation than you would necessarily know, because what you tend to hear about in terms of media is when there are disagreements, of which there are on occasion. However, some of the co-ordination I have talked about around environment council in particular, we have a very strong reputation. It means that we can talk to other environment ministers across Europe, and when you are dealing with the volume of people to influence doing that on a co-ordinated basis with the UK, it is very important indeed. Certainly on the Yunker package, I am absolutely clear that we need to maximise what we can get from that. Indeed, Humza Yousaf will be taking forward the joint ministerial committees with Europe going forward, but we have made it quite clear that we can work in co-ordination with that to make sure that we can maximise our impact. It is unfortunate that we are seeing the UK increasingly becoming distanced and detached. That is the message that I am getting consistently from Europe, so therefore its influence is less. We have to make sure that we continue to be positive in terms of engagement that we have something to offer and to be a constructive voice in this, and that is what we will continue to do. Still running on the theme of the European Union office, I ask your cabinet secretary to provide an example of how the Scottish Government's Brussels office monitors policy developments of relevance to Scotland? On a continuous and regular basis, that is a vast majority of what it does, but part of what we are trying to do is to make sure that it does not all have to be done in the Brussels office. A lot of the monitoring of developments should be happening within each Government department area, whether it is in education or whether it is in other areas. That is on a continual basis. I think that the challenge is the volume of material in the majority of development. Prioritising is really important, which is why having our own action plan in terms of what our focus is helps to direct them as to what they spend more time on than in other areas. We really have to do that because we have to comply. We have a good record. We have developed, over recent years, the monitoring mechanism by which we have the implementation of regulations. In areas such as agriculture, it is absolutely extensive, but in areas of justice and home affairs, particularly with the recent optites, it is absolutely critical that we are on top of what is there. That is what they do. Do you want to offer anything else, Colin? In terms of the Brussels office, we have a representative from Marine Scotland, who is given a very strong fisheries interest, who leads our engagement, making sure that he is able to support ministers when they are at councils and out-of-the-guard. One of our senior officers focuses very much on the agriculture and environment portfolios, given their importance to Scotland, given the fact that those decisions have to be implemented and cover most of our agriculture and environmental policy. Then we have a very strong focus on the whole investment and innovation agenda alongside the justice and home affairs. Effectively, we have a team there who act, to some extent, the eyes and ears of the teams back at home, but they can only operate effectively if they can link it to ministers and to the officials in the departments in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Ministers are regularly in Brussels, and I am part of my role. I am also used to encouraging all Ministers to be in Brussels and go to as many councils as they can and to engage as fully as they can. Obviously, parliamentary business here requires them to vote etc., so sometimes they cannot attend as often as possible. I was very pleased, for example, in terms of the co-operation that Jamie McGregor talked about, that Andrew Constance, when she was the youth employment minister, led for the UK at one of the councils in one of the areas. Again, that is an area that people are very interested in in our work in terms of youth employment, being one of the administrations that really focuses on that. That is in keeping with some of the developments that are taking place. That is another area where we can help to lead and do so in co-operation, but also where we can influence other countries as well and learn more, which is at point part of it. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I would like to get down to some of the nitty-gritty questions with regard to jobs and economic growth. You mentioned the support for the European Union in Scotland, and I would suggest that it is largely based on the economic benefits of membership of the EU, as opposed to the political debates that are happening elsewhere. Yesterday, in the chamber, John Swinney indicated that the Scottish Government had a target of growing exports by 50 per cent. How will the refreshed EU action plan push that agenda forward? What are we going to change to achieve that particular objective? That is why the alignment with the Scottish Economic Strategy launch last week is critical, because you have, as I mentioned, a focus on innovation and internationalisation. In terms of the point about the importance, more than 300,000 jobs are in Scotland and are dependent on companies that have the EU as a market. In terms of the size of it, we also have an important part about the foreign direct investment that comes in. That is an area for exports as well in terms of how we can then connect. It is not just about what comes in, it is about what can go out as well. There is an interesting discussion that I have had recently with different countries that are interested in investing here, so they can then export from here using the innovation technology skills base that we have, because remember that is our strength. That goes back to some of the issues around horizon 2020. Innovation is really important. People want to invest here because they can then export elsewhere. A good example—again, it is how there is an interlinking between the skills investment, et cetera. I met with GSK when I was in Dublin, who has major investments in Irvine but also in Montrose. One of the things that they said to me was to thank me for when I was Cabinet Secretary for Education for introducing a two-for-one life science apprenticeship. There were lots of other factors that made them invest, and they have invested over £100 million in those plants in recent years. However, they knew that we were committed to skills and an investment in people will help innovation, which comes back to this inclusive growth agenda. It is about how we can improve productivity and output by recognising inclusive growth, which means investing in young people, women and in other areas. When I said that telling the stories of individual companies and individuals can help to argue the case for Europe, that is one example. Internationalisation is not just about an export focus for its own transactional trade aspects. Companies that are exposed to international activity are more likely to be innovative because they learn elsewhere. One of the areas that I know that Richard Lochhead is keen on is that we have had great figures on food and drink, but we can do more. That is going to be a big opportunity for us in developing the market, particularly in Europe. Part of it is not just about exports to Europe. It is using the European investment to help us to grow our internationalisation within Scotland of our companies so they can export not just to Europe but beyond Europe. That is where we are going to see the linkages. Is there any way that we are going to engage in a different fashion to push ahead with these particular objectives? A practical thing that will come out from the economic strategy, which I have also been involved in from the international portfolio, is ensuring that we have a OneScotland partnership across the world. You will see that very heavily in our international framework. The idea of innovation investment hubs and the location of them will allow us to better corral and bring together all the agencies from Scotland that can help to promote that export agenda. They are practical things that are in the economic strategy, which will be a part of the European action plan and will also be part of our overarching international framework. That is a key focus on trading investment, but it is not just about the transactional aspect. The innovation is key. That is where the added value from Scotland is, if we can mobilise our activity around horizon 2020. Members, it is SMEs that we need to get exporting more. That will be one of the key tricks for us. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary, and welcome to our committee in a sunny morning. You have had an opportunity to visit the US and you plan to visit them again in the future, with that experience. Can you repeat that? Yes, of course. The welcome or the actual question. Let me formally welcome you again to this sunny morning. I was just saying that you have had an opportunity to visit the US and you are planning other visits as well. With that experience, how flexible do you think the Scottish Government's EU action plan is in response to the emergency policies, for example the TTIPIT? That is why I think that a focus more on ensuring that we have a better focus on relationships, networks, partnerships and engagement is critical. TTIPIT was not in the European action plan of 2009 because that was being developed, but it has not stopped us from responding to it. Similarly, the priorities from the committee will not have had TTIPIT in previous years, so you have adapted to circumstances as they arise. That is what the priorities are. I think that that is one of the things that is really important is co-ordinating across government how we do that. I certainly do that with Cabinet colleagues, but I also have the use of bringing together the ministers with particular interests on European matters, whether it is in public health, whether it is in rural areas, whether it is with enterprise to make sure that we can be cited across interests. If there is an emerging political imperative for us all to co-ordinate in one area, we will be able to do that a bit more nimbly, which is what everybody expects us to do. I think that the $6 million question is that although we have now amended our action plan, what I would be really interested in knowing is, is this going to be a working document for us, or are we going to be stuck for this for a period of time? As we quite clearly have seen from experience that Europe and TTIP in particular is quite a changing developing scene, I am just wondering how does that set us in responding to that and what the timeframes are for that response? I think that that is a very important point. The European Action Plan will sit as part of our international framework, which in itself will sit within the wider economic strategy as well. In terms of the European Action Plan, as with the international framework, we want it to be able to be a more of a live document. That is why it will be web-based, it is why it will be regularly updated. There are policy statements and positions that you might take on an annual basis, which I have provided back. There are movements, but the plan should allow people to be aligned in what their focus is, but allow a responsiveness. It needs to be more interactive, so it will be more of a live document than what a document was produced by a minister in 2009 that might have got an annual written update, but this is going to be far more interactive. It also provides that portal, which I think that you are looking for in your discussions about how people are interested in access. It is not beyond-end, although it is obviously got to Europe. Different organisations have an important platform, but we are able to try to link to the relevant areas that can help to provide positions. However, it means that it can be more evolving, and it is also important that it provides a go-to area for information, but any comments, speeches, developments that take place, we can also access that and put it on. That is the shape of what it will be. In terms of the office in Brussels, do we have somebody who is going to be responsible to make sure that we deliver that more actively rather than just have it on the web? We will pass this over to the person responsible. One of the great advantages of where we are now in terms of where we were then is that now we have a clear set of priorities for the next five years that were set by the European Council and the Commission last summer. We also have a very clear set of priorities from Scotland and the new economic strategy, so our aim is to make sure that both are aligned and that we use that as the framework for taking it forward. In fact, the preparation of the action plan is something that has been done jointly by the team in Edinburgh and the team in Brussels, which support the cabinet secretary. We will endeavour to make sure that it is taking forward actively and that the reports that are done and the updates that are done can reflect the situation as it develops. I have a strategic responsibility for our European and external affairs activities. Humza Yousaf will take forward particularly relations with the UK domestically. I will be carrying out more of our bilateral relationships, so that is at a political level. I will also coordinate with colleagues in terms of the social service. Colin is the deputy director and is responsible for European and UK relations and spends a considerable amount of time in Brussels and with the Brussels team. That is why I definitely thought that it would be helpful to do it. You know where the responsibility lies as well. That is very helpful. Thank you very much. If I may, I would just like to refer to a couple of issues. One is, I would say I am pleased that Paul Wheelhouse is in Brussels today. In terms of that trip and visit, is it possible to get some kind of feedback fed through to this committee or what would be the plan? I am just trying to think what we would normally do. Obviously, the issues that we deal with, what we are particularly of interest to the Justice Committee, and I think that that is something that we should maybe discuss with yourselves and the clerks as to how we can update. I obviously or it will now be a hands-on useful update following GMC Europe discussions. You tend to be done to the committee of subjects. Again, this committee has been trying to encourage all the subject committees to be more proactive in that European agenda. I would be a bit reluctant to change that and have this committee has been the only place that reports come back to. Certainly, if there is a read-out of that, I will make sure that this committee is on that one. I certainly was not suggesting that. I am a secretary. Obviously, I wear two hats because I am on the Justice Committee and I am a European rapporteur. Actually, I am assuming that you get updates on council activity from time to time from ministers, or do you request that as a committee member? It does not necessarily form part of the agenda. Obviously, I would have stepped on anyone's toes, but it seems to me that both committees are interested in this issue. We could certainly look about how to make sure that it is done on a meaningful basis, so that it is not overloaded with information that cannot or will not necessarily need to work with, and without creating a bureaucratic administrative burden on everything, so that we can concentrate on getting things done. However, it is something that we can look at and maybe some feedback from the committee. I suspect that it is talking to European rapporteurs and each of your committees as to how things are working in terms of knowing what is happening. Being on my mind, we have now got a new ministerial team. It is probably not an unreasonable time to have a refresh as to how that works and works well. However, I would caution against solver bureaucracy. That is the only thing that I would say. Can I move on to my next point? The Latvian presidency, which I will shortly be hearing from, and the Latvian priorities, is particularly interested in how that fits with the Scottish Government's agenda. It is particularly interested in the third Latin disability, Engage Europe, which touches on concerns about conflicts on their doorstep. Have you had any thoughts on that? I think that Engage Europe is really critical. It is part of our proposals on a reformed Engage Europe that we put forward. Is that concentration on making sure that Europe is addressing the issues of concern? Jobs is most definitely one of them. Security is another, particularly in energy or security of other countries. It is also an area that those countries that are to the east of Europe have serious concerns about. The Lithuanians, when they were in presidency, did a great deal of concentration on European partnerships. Whether Europe acted and functioned as Engages, it should have been Engages, is two-way. Engage is Engaged with your internal citizens, which is a key aspect of what the Latvians want to pursue. I think that there is a clear focus for European external affairs policy, now led by the high representative, Mogherina. The activity that she has been involved in is quite strategic. It is important between the southern borders. That is the balance. You heard from the Italian presidency, for example, when the ambassador was here, he was requesting that the southern partnership and the southern borders were not put to one side in favour of what was happening in relation to concerns about the east, particularly in relation to Ukraine. That balancing act is a very hard one, because it should be able to be done in both. I have raised my concerns with the UK Government. I have said it in this committee as well that the Mediterranean is becoming the watery graveyard of Europe. Therefore, strategically long-term, whether it is to do with climate change in the long term in the north of Africa or indeed the conflicts are there, that has to be dealt with. At the same time, you will have a presidency that should understandably be very focused and rightly on concerns to the eastern borders. That is going to be the challenge for Europe going forward. How does it make sure that its European external relations policy can do so in a way that addresses everybody's concerns without being too diluted to have a meaningful impact? The commission has just two or three weeks ago published its digital economy and society index report. In there, it shows a range of performance indicators over a range of digital services, if you like. Particularly in the one called integration of digital services, that is the one that is showing the least progress in Europe. The UK, for example, is in the lower half of the performance table in terms of these types of services. It includes things like online selling and cross-border selling and such. What is your response to the news that we are hearing that the UK Government and other European Governments have decided to backtrack on their commitment to abolish roaming charges for another three years to 2018? That has been reported in the press that that is what the Governments have done. Of course, that does nothing in my view to assist consumers and to help the integration of digital services, and it just makes matters worse. What is your view on that and what influence could the Scottish Government bring to bear on that with the UK? Bear in mind that there is one concentration in exporting, and a lot of exporting will be done not just within Europe in terms of using digital technology but also globally. You have seen that market develop, which is part of that innovation and internationalisation agenda that I talked about earlier. Clearly, it is disappointing that the UK is moving that direction because it is in our interests. We are an exporting nation. We want to have growth through international and innovative practices. Therefore, in terms of, I suppose, if I was looking at the Latvian president's priorities—and obviously you can speak to the ambassador about that in the following session—I think that their clear focus on a digital Europe will be really important at this time. I think that they could have made a clear and distinct difference in driving that forward in terms of the different issues around digitalisation of the public sector, safety and security issues, but also the EU's digital single market strategy is really, really important as you have set out. Of all the recent presidencies, there has been an understanding of the clear need for this, but I do think that the Latvians will be able to offer a great deal in terms of leadership in this agenda, and I hope that they can communicate that to the UK as well. I think that that is part of our responsibility both as ministers in the European area but also Keith Brown and his responsibilities in infrastructure as well. We need to make sure that we are influencing the UK on a positive agenda. I hope that, coming out of the Westminster election, we might be in a more enlightened position in relation to the digital market from a new incoming UK Government, but I think that that connectivity in infrastructure is critical. It is not just a self-interest from Scotland. Europe has to do it because we are not going to compete on low-value products. It has got to be high-value, and that is why the digital connectivity is absolutely crucial. In an area that I have got a keen interest in creative industries, Scotland has a lot to offer and a lot to contribute, and unless we have a better digital framework to do that, that will impede us in a growth area. In terms of that, has the UK Government consulted with the Scottish Government on that really crucial matter because it has been of interest to us—a committee particularly—for a number of years? Unless a column can contribute to that, I think that it is an area that is probably best out with a portfolio level by the relevant cabinet secretary and on the digital infrastructure, that is Keith Brown's responsibility. I think that that has exhausted our questions for you this morning. We thank you very much. You know that that was a very condensed and intense evidence session, but it is extremely helpful indeed. Just on behalf of the committee, I thank you for coming along with me. We look forward to engaging with the Scottish Government's European engagement strategy in the future. I am going to suspend very briefly to allow our witnesses to change over. Welcome back to the European External Relations Committee. Agenda item 2 this morning is our topic, the presidency of the Council of the European Union. I welcome to committee this morning his Excellency, Andres Tick-Manus, who is the ambassador of the Republic of Latvia in the UK. Slovega Sil Calna, who is the deputy head of mission at the embassy of Latvia, and our very own John MacGregor, who is the honorary consul of Latvia in Scotland. I welcome you all to our committee this morning. We are delighted to have you here, and we thank you very much for the wonderful reception that you provided us with last night. The fantastic music, especially the last piece, I have to say. I see that Twitter went mad raving about it last night, so we are very grateful for that. Ambassador, I believe that you have an opening statement that you would like to give the committee this morning. Thank you. Well, Chairman, Members of Committee, first allow me to thank you for inviting me to your committee meeting and allowing me to share our considerations on priorities of Latvian presidency in the Council of European Union. This is a very great challenge for Latvia. Eleven years after joining to the EU, this is our first presidency. We have in the European Union member countries a number of countries who have great experience in conducting presidencies, six or nine years. Nine times this is our first. The time has changed as well, and probably the next presidency for EU member countries may come after 14 or 15 years. So it is a particular challenge. We as a small country want to make our presidency efficient, useful and very much reflecting the needs of the time. This assumption was when we have chosen the major objectives and priorities of our presidency. Probably the most important task of our presidency was fully overcome financial and economic crisis, and we see that we can overcome this crisis being more competitive. Therefore, we have chosen three major areas. We are concentrating our efforts. It is competitive Europe, digital Europe and engaged Europe. Competitive Europe means creating jobs and creating and becoming back to economic growth. We see several instruments that can be helpful to implement. This program, one is a commission's plan for investments or a YUNCA plan. It is 315 billion euros devoted to investment package affordable for big companies, affordable for small and medium-sized companies. We have advanced quite well in this direction. We hope that until the end of our presidency we will be able to fully launch this plan. Last week, Ecofin Council has endorsed a strategic investment fund. A commission has also published a green paper of Capital Market Union. That is another instrument we see as a good tool to get access to investments for SMEs, for any companies. We hope very much that these instruments could be a good boost for the recovery of European economy and getting back to growth, creating jobs. We are caring very much on social dimension. That has also left an experience from the time when we had to overcome financial and economic crisis. One of the key factors was maintaining good dialogue with social partners. Therefore, we are also very much engaged in keeping social dialogue in this three-part summit with employers and trade unions. We are working on implementation of banking union and all the mechanisms of banking union. No particular new approaches are envisaged but we want to launch and check how the newly created structures are properly functioning. One of the key elements of competitive Europe is efficient energy policy. Here we are determined to move on with creation of energy union. Again, we have advanced quite well in the beginning of February in Riga, a high-level conference took place. Energy union was discussed and just now, our energy union strategy was endorsed by energy council. We are also expecting that March European Council will give its green light for energy union. Then, in June council, the next legislative act will be adopted to implement this energy union. Energy union is very crucial in our time. It is a part of European security, not only part of European economy. To our vision, we see energy union based on five major principles. Principle of solidarity, principle of interconnected energy market, an efficient common energy diplomacy, competitive energy independence, diversification of sources and diversification of delivery. And good governance across energy policy. We have quite a good experience in Baltic Sea region how good governance, how efficient governance of all these principles is being created. Countries around Baltic Sea are doing very much to interconnect different kind of energy sources there are gas pipelines crossing the countries around. We will take with an ultimate goal to create a common gas grid around Baltic Sea. There are electricity cables from Estonia to Finland, from Lithuania to Sweden, from Lithuania to Poland, so it gives also from Latvia to Estonia. Well, it gives really an efficient tool to change when necessary the flows of energy, flows of electricity, differentiation of sources, as a same time common Baltic energy stock market. Stock exchange gives an opportunity to buy in one exchange electricity even not knowing who is producing this electricity and that gives a real alternative and real competition between energy companies. Certainly we see that we are very much like minded with United Kingdom in matters of development and strengthening of single market and all the regulatory framework of single market. So it will be one of the permanent issues on competition councils and we are determined to make single market more efficient, more affordable and a good tool to strengthen competitions among companies in European Union. Digital Europe is one of the key elements of competitiveness and our digital philosophy is based on assumptions that digital solutions should be found by default. That means that first we are looking for new challenges how to cope with them based on digital solutions and digital opportunities. It is giving for Europe enormous opportunities for trade, for movement of goods and services. At the same time, we are thinking about issues like data protection, security of information systems, accessibility of web and of course education among youngsters particularly and on cyber security strategy. All these issues we are going to discuss during digital assembly that will take place in Riga in June 1718. There are a number of quite challenging issues on this agenda. I can mention a few of them like telecommunication package that is quite a difficult item because across Europe we see a great number of different actors and stakeholders among companies and states who have different interests and maybe different level of development in telecommunications sphere. The discussions are not going very easy but we want to push them ahead in order to get some affordable compromise in the issues on roaming and on telecommunication tariffs. We hope we will advance as much as possible and we won't leave too much to our 3.0 partner, Luxembourg. Digital single market is also a crucial point on agenda and it is in our interest to develop as much as possible digital single market bearing in mind that it should safeguard quality of services and on reasonable costs for customers. We are advancing network and information security directive. It is a very, very crucial for further development of digital marketing in Europe for protection of consumers. Here we are also working on personal data protection on a programme on interoperability solution for European public administration. We are working on more implementation on e-government, e-governance, e-services offered by governments. So it is really very vast agenda and we are happy to share our own experience we are using in Latvia and in Latvia our digital services are using, used very much solutions of digital government are used very much and well sometime the opportunity to use free Wi-Fi across Latvia is considered by many as a part of their daily human rights. If I am moving towards connected Europe I would speak about two major points. One point is trade issues and here we are concentrating on advancing free trade negotiations starting with TTIP. Well there are a lot of discussions around TTIP everywhere in the press, in different media among politicians. There are many questions put related to TTIP negotiations. Issues like GMO, issues like transparency of the negotiation process, issues whether TTIP negotiations may affect health services. I well on one hand presidency is not directly involved in TTIP negotiations. It is a mandate of European Commission of course and European Commission is conducting these negotiations quite actively. There have been already eight negotiation rounds and two more are envisaged during Latvia presidency. But we are trying to push the whole negotiation process ahead. We are representing EU position on different conferences, global conferences discussing trade. And we are also working on increasing transparency of negotiations. Certainly we should keep in mind that transparency can't be one sided. Well we are not, due to transparency issues we are not interested to weaken the positions of negotiator teams. Of course not. Well at the same time if the public demand is high to see more information about like health service. But I think health service, the issues where questions were put and answers were given quite recently. The Commission of Maelstrom was visiting London and she quite explicitly told that health services are separated from the negotiation mandate of TTIP. We are also pushing ahead other free trade agreements on agenda of commission. Like, wow, SETA agreement with Canada is already approved but it should be implemented and we are pushing the process of approval by Parliament of this agreement. We are working as well on pushing ahead EU-Chapan FTA with Vietnam. So we think that these negotiations, although the mandate is very huge and the points are very many, the agenda is vast. And of course negotiator should think about the reasonable compromise while not at any point in such negotiations you can win. But I think at the very end Commission will do its job very properly and in interest of member countries and Europeans. Another important area of our programme of connected Europe is development of European neighbourhood policy. Neighbourhood policy to the southern direction and to the eastern direction. We having more knowledge and experience how to do with eastern direction. We are concentrating our efforts on developing and advancing Eastern partnership policy of European Union. And we are planning to host in Riga Eastern partnership summit in May 21-22. We hope on a good participation, on high level participation in the summit. Not an easy time for convening summit but as the previous experience shows, every member country having presidency is planning its own agenda. But it should be prepared also for challenging coming from not planned regions or not planned topics. So we haven't particularly envisaged in our agenda the finding solution on Greek issues. We neither have a particularly planned crisis in Ukraine but we are facing it and we should respond to these challenges. And we see that European partnership policy has since its launch in 2007 it has become more individual although at that time all six countries were standing on the same line. And now after eight years we see that there are front runners and there are countries that are still a bit hesitating of going more deeply in relationship with European Union. And I find it's quite normal, it's good that while we see what we can't instead of these countries we can't wish to approach more closely or take over the standards of European standards and values. But they have to decide themselves and that's not maybe easy political decision for them. And we see now how three countries are advancing Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova. They have advanced in matters of association agreements, in matters of mobility agreements, in different programmes of rule of law implementation in these countries. And there are countries like Azerbaijan, Moldova and Armenia who have probably their more flexible agenda. But we want to shape the policy towards each of these countries to make a tailor make policy to each of these countries. And during the summit in Riga we want to set a new set of guidelines for the future how to move ahead in relations with these countries. We also want to review European Central Asia strategy, a region that is playing quite a crucial role for Europe, not only as a part of common energy policy but we should not lose it out of sight that this is a region where quite substantial energy resources are located. But this is also a region that is quite important for Asian security policy having in mind what's going on in Afghanistan, what's going on in Pakistan, what's going on in Iraq. These countries are quite concerned about all these processes and EU should work together with them. And we have concentrated on three major directions in cooperation with these countries. It's sustainable development, strengthening of rule of law and market economy, border security and education. While these three directions we think could be beneficial and very useful for these countries as well, will be beneficial for interests of European Union. All the neighbourhood policies have quite a particular security dimension and we see how security situation in Europe has changed just during the last year. And we should respond to these challenges, we should respond to these changes and therefore we have envisaged also during our presidency in June summit, during European Council we should reshape and review European security strategy, a quite crucial document of course we will work together with European external action service that will prepare this revised strategy but it is essential to give a proper response on the new security challenging, the existing security architecture and security order in Europe has changed. Whether we like it or not but it has so we have to find a proper response and increase European security. Of course we know that European security very much is based on strong transatlantic link and that should be taken into account but there are new challenges. Well just in these days Russia has stepped out of CFE Conventional Treaty, Conventional Forces Treaty and that's not a good signal indeed. So we well Europe need to find a proper response also a proper response by finding appropriate finances for defence issues. Even having in mind that maybe 20 years European politicians used to live in a very nice and kind conditions relationship among countries and they were used to find best solutions through diplomatic means, through negotiations and finding compromise, well we see that we should not neglect current situation and we should assess these current situations and we should not forget about proper financing of defence policies as well. Well I could of course tell you much more about climate policy, about enlargement, about migration issues but these all issues are on agenda of election presidency but I'll try to save your time and I'll be happy to give a response to your questions about some particular issues and thank you very much for listening mate. Thank you that is extremely comprehensive and covered every topic I think that we have looked at on the committee. Willie Coffey Thank you convener. Good morning Ambassador. I'd like to ask you a question on the digital single market which I was asking our cabinet secretary I think when you came in to join us at the meeting. The European Commission has just published its digital economy and society index and it shows us that in the area of integrating digital services this is the poorest in terms of performance of a range of services in the digital economy in Europe. How then can you explain the European Government's decision to delay the abolition of roaming charges data, roaming charges for another three years? Does that not give the wrong message to European consumers about our intentions to create a digital single market? Well I wouldn't call it as delay. Simply these negotiations are moving, we should acknowledge not very fast. As I mentioned there are a number of different stakeholders. Well we should take into account interests of companies while they shouldn't have losses but in offering telecommunications services but at the same time I think European Commission has already a number of years ago have started to limit roaming charges at well 10 years ago. You may remember they were enormous if you were travelling somewhere outside your own country you faced with probably five or ten times higher roaming charges than you were paying in your own country. Now the goal is to align roaming charges with national charges but to achieve this good compromise should be found and a number of issues of companies of different member countries should be taken into account. And that's the reason I don't think that commission is somehow delaying the whole process. Simply there are too many actors around this issue and therefore this negotiation process is not as quick as maybe we would wish to have. But I think more important and for us as a presidency is more important to land to a good compromise not to force one or other issue but to get some agreement across 28. Therefore I wouldn't say that it's somehow delayed but simply the process is quite complicated due to the fact that there are many actors and many stakeholders taking part. My understanding is that the roaming charges were supposed to be abolished by the end of this year and I was wanting to ask if during your country's presidency you will continue to press for that at the earliest opportunity so that consumers in Europe can get a better deal and that Europe can move towards a true integrated digital market that I'm sure we all support. Well we really need to find a compromise. Our goal is transactions between service providers and service consumers are safe and secure and that's quite essential to take also into account the aspect of security. We should also take into account aspect of personal data security when we are discussing this package we should take into account how we can fight cyber criminals that are not so few in our time. So well there are really number of different aspects on the whole package and services, interests of consumers and interests of service providers are essential from both sides and that's what we are trying to find the most appropriate solution. Thank you. Jimmy McGregor. Well good morning Ambassador, in your talk, your very articulate talk you've answered most of the questions that I was going to answer. But I'm pleased to see that you're hosting the Eastern Partnership Summit in Riga. In terms of the developments that have happened recently in the Ukraine and your worries about security, what part do you see the Eastern Partnership playing in that? I think when EU was starting its neighbourhood policy that was late 90s and focusing more on its orientation towards a thousand regions and afterwards towards eastern regions, the girl, the ultimate girl was of course first economic development and second its security. Having in mind that quite legitimate approach to consider that democratic countries with responsible government with common market rules are more stable, more predictable, more reliable neighbours for European Union member countries. That was probably the ultimate girl of European neighbourhood policy and at the same time it is a sovereign decision of any European state whether to choose such option or not. And we see today that Eastern Partnership policy is a very good example that European Union is conducting policy based on free choice. And we see that there are frontrunners countries who have declared that they want to align with European standards, align with European values and of course if European Union is considering itself as a union of values it should defend values and endorse these values if other countries want to align with these values. At the same time if countries like Armenia or Azerbaijan or Belarus, they are maybe still hesitating and looking for different options how they are shaping their foreign policy, it's a discretion to choose it. And it's not European Union who are imposing somehow pressing them to accept one single model. Well one size doesn't fit all and I think Eastern Partnership policy is the best example that it's not the case but in general I think democratic Ukraine based on rule of law, strong democratic institutions based on market economy and rules that are observed in let's say Poland and Ukraine and both sides of the border it is in general interest of European Union, it is in general interest of Ukraine. But it is again it's sort of a decision by Ukrainians and they have well year ago they made the desperate attempt and desperate decision to turn to these European values, to come closer to European values and I think it's very much obligation of European Union to be as much helpful, provide as much assistance. As possible to Ukraine. So far it is a philosophy of Eastern Partnership and I think this is a partnership even I can say bilateral partnership in a common frame between EU and any of these countries it's not directed towards any other country. Well sometime Russia is claiming that it's somehow directed against Russia. Well it's not. Well it's up to European Union to shape its own foreign policy. European Union shouldn't ask well neither Russia nor America how to develop relations with Morocco or with Ukraine or with Egypt. It's a discretion of European Union to do as well well Russia is not asking European Union when when it's implementing projects of Eurasian Economic Union although it does concern also interests of European Union but it's discretion of Russia or any other country. So it is we should honor sovereign decisions of states and that's what European Union is doing. Thank you. Well I'm also delighted that you know that you want to see alongside the secure financial sector you know you want to promote growth and jobs and you know you think that TTIP may possibly be a way of kickstarting a spark in you know to lift the stagnation in the Eurozone which obviously would make the Eurozone more attractive and European values more attractive as well. On that case we have the common agricultural policy and I'm delighted to see that Latvia would like to simplify the common agricultural policy. Do you have any views on how that might be done? Well I think common agricultural policy demands quite a sensitive discussion across all 28 member states. We haven't envisaged during our president system some very substantial shift in common agriculture policy and financial framework of common agriculture policy has been set two years ago and the basic principles of financing have been set. Well we can consider that by implementing of common agriculture policy we need to discuss the reducing of administrative burden, reducing of red tape with regard to common agriculture policy and well that's what in our plans of presidency we haven't envisaged discussion and ministerial council in March as well we hope that this discussion will be continued in May. We are not about to somehow challenge or change agreed decisions on common agriculture policy or on reform of common agriculture policy but we want to make common agriculture policy more efficient. We have invited all the member states to present their proposals where in which areas the administrative burden with regard to farmers could be reduced and we are looking forward to advance with this discussion to make the life of the farmers more easy and not to burden them with too many reports papers or any other administrative burdens. One of the things about T-Tip is worries about food safety legislation and you mentioned here advancing legislation on food safety and particular on novel food. Do you see this as a problem? The US which doesn't appear to have such strong safety precautions on food as the European? I think food safety certainly is a commission negotiating team knows it that food safety is very sensitive across all the European Union member countries and certainly it is attaching a particular attention to food safety and therefore it is also taking into account that the European Union member countries the attitude towards genetically modified products is quite negative and I think that is a point that is taken into account by conducting these negotiations. Also the issues of production safety, the contamination of soil, contamination of environment that also issues that are affecting food safety and food quality and these issues are also taken into account. During our presidency we have envisaged in April in the council of agriculture council we have envisaged a discussion about food safety and genetically modified products so we think that ministers will come to a proper position defending the interests of all the member countries. We are quickly running out of time, Rod Campbell. Good morning, ambassador. I have two kind of different points. One is in helpful submission prepared by Scotland Europa in relation to your presidency. There is reference in the justice and home affairs section to the creation of a bill of new psychoactic substances legal highs which is a subject that this Parliament has shown interest in. Are you able to help us with any more information on that legal highs? Sorry, I couldn't understand. I'm referring to a Scotland Europa submission in relation to matters affecting justice and home affairs. There is reference to data protection packages and the pursuit of fraud in relation to European financial interests. But there are also references to what is described as the creation of a bill of new psychoactive substances. Is that anything you can help us with? If not, don't worry, I'll move on. I'm quite happy to move on if you are not able to add to that discussion. It's a very specific issue. I probably could, in this moment, reply rather generally that, of course, the consumption of drugs and appearing of new type of drugs that are not yet listed and still are presenting high dangers. It's a danger for consumers, particularly among young people. It is on the top of our agenda and certainly our presidency will do its utmost to get the proper regulations that is not affecting the health and security of particularly young people who are raising awareness on their knowledge, on consequences. Of such use of dangerous drugs, I can maybe find and send you in writing some more explicit answer about today. I could give only some rather general answers. My second point was in relation to CETA. I think you referred earlier on to the question of trying to get approval for CETA by the European Parliament. My understanding, last time I looked at this and I might be a bit out of date, was that the European Parliament only had one plenary session in relation to CETA. Obviously, there is considerable concern about TTIP over here in CETA to some way, in some respects, kind of sets that path. Are you able to help us with any further information on the process of scrutiny of CETA at the European level? Well, our European Parliament is following really very closely to negotiations of TTIP, but we of course should take into account that as soon the negotiations are conducted, well, European Parliament can't make any decision on, well, neither on negotiation process nor on the result. Because there is no result yet. Of course, European Parliament will very carefully scrutinise TTIP when the negotiations will be finished. But I think it's very important, and we as Presidency have had a very substantive dialogue with the European Parliament on issues on TTIP. And we are intending to continue with this dialogue because I think it's very important for negotiating team to know what European Parliament is thinking about the whole process. For instance, about the level of transparency of the negotiating process. And where are the particular interests of European Parliament with regard to maybe particular topics? But at the same time, we are expecting now that European Parliament will start ratification procedures of CETA, of Canada agreement. Negotiations are finished. Now it's European Parliament job to do its part. And we from outside, we as Presidency are trying to move flexibly this Canada agreement ahead in order to achieve Parliament's approval. Okay, well, there it's there I think, convener. Finally, Adam. Thank you, convener, and welcome ambassador. Like Scotland, Latvia is a relatively small country in Europe. But unlike Scotland, you're a member state of the European Union in your own right. And as I understand it, this is your first term or assuming the role of EU Presidency. Could I ask what kind of impact that's had in Latvia itself, assuming the role of EU Presidency and what impact it's had on your international relationships? Well, I think that that's really a very philosophical question and thank you for it. Membership in European Union for a small country, country like Latvia, gives enormous opportunities to increase its global influence through the structures of European Union, through the mechanisms of relationship between European Union and other countries and regions of the world. And therefore, in this respect, Latvia's small country is gaining its importance in the world. And of course, assuming the challenges of presidency, it is something particular, of course. It brings more knowledge in the world about our country while we should recognize that probably people in most of countries of the globe are not waking up in the morning with a hurt thought what's going on in Latvia. Probably not. Many of them really don't know where Latvia is. And that's an excellent, enormous opportunity to bring knowledge about Latvia. So next Sunday I'm going, I'm accredited to Australia and New Zealand. I'm going with a particular presidency program, information program to bring information to Australians and New Zealanders about Latvia. We can use this time of presidency to increase knowledge about my own country and we are happy about it. Of course, it costs quite a lot. Any presidency costs millions and millions, but it costs also very much engagement and work. But Latvians are not afraid of work. They are happy to work and work hard. So this is an enormous opportunity for small country to be more visible on global scale. Certainly we should somehow put aside our very strictly national interest and we should work on achieving compromise among all 20 countries. That's a sign of successful presidency. How a country can achieve an appropriate compromise among all the member countries, not so much how this country could advance their own proper interests, then it would be really not the best presidency. But we are trying to do our best in promoting the interests of the whole European Union. I should say these common interests are very much in line with our national interests. So we are working as well for our national sake in having successful presidency. So it is a real challenge for us. That's the first presidency for Latvia, but I think we can't cope with it. Latvians are quite pragmatic. We are more to the north and we are used to not very favorable nature conditions. We know that we should fight for ourselves permanently to be strong and I think that helps us also by conducting this presidency. Thank you very much and we wish you every success. On that note, Ambassador, that concludes our time with you this morning. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for a very comprehensive insight into your presidency and the work that you have already done and the future work that you have in the pipeline. As Adam Ingram said, we wish you every success on that. You are quite welcome to stay with us until we conclude one final piece of business at committee this morning and then we can have a formal introduction to the committee afterwards. Agenda item 3 is the Brussels bulletin. Given that we have used up all of our time this morning, could I suggest that if there are any questions, queries, clarifications on the Brussels bulletin, you direct those to the clerks? We forward the Brussels bulletins to the relevant committee. The committee agreed. Thank you very much indeed. We now suspend to go into our private session. I remind members that we have a committee report to conclude this morning too. I thank you all for coming along and we will see you at the next meeting. I now suspend the meeting and go into private. Thank you very much.