 A lŷn grifes y 12 mewn gyflaes inni o'r Ysgrifennu Lleid自ynestaufy nid iddyn nhw i ddoeitio yn iawn i fod yn ei wneud hwnna rwyf yn gwneud bwysig, wrth gwrs, wrth ddanith dd weird yn ei bwysig i dweithio, trwm gweithi'n cyfrifes ymlaes y f Seriell Cymru, rydym yn enghraeg sydd o'r ysgrifennu Lleid fydd yn osud. Rwy'n meddwlfu'r agendaeth y top iawn i'r ysgrifennu, gyda nhw'r byr ysgrifennu Gwyrdd. Felly, we are going to move on very swiftly. Agenda item 1 is the UK's future relationship with the EU and part of our Connecting Scotland inquiry. I am delighted to welcome back to the committee this morning, Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Europe and External Affairs Fiona Hyslop. Welcome, Cabinet Secretary. Colin Henry, who is the Deputy Director and Head of European Relations, Scottish Government. Welcome back also to yourself, Mr Henry, to our committee this morning. Cabinet Secretary, I believe that you have got a brief opening statement. Thank you very much and good morning, convener. Thanks for the invitation to speak to you this morning. I am aware that the committee has continued with the second strand of the Connecting Scotland inquiry since my last appearance and that you have been taking evidence on the UK's relationship with the EU in response to the UK's announcement of an in-out referendum on the UK's EU membership. I would like to take the opportunity to outline the Government's position on some of the points that the committee considered during its session on EU reform and EU referendum. The Scottish Government believes that the referendum bill currently being debated in Westminster falls short. It fails to meet the standards required. Firstly, while we welcome the decision of the UK Government not to hold a referendum on the same day as next year's elections to the Scottish Parliament, it is very disappointing that, despite the best efforts of many MPs, the franchise will not be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, especially given that the group showed beyond it that they were able to take part in the independence referendum debate as mature, conscientious citizens and deserve their say in their future. Secondly, 171,000 EU citizens have chosen to make Scotland their home and the case for extending the vote to them in the EU referendum is strong. Again, it is wrong that there is no provision in the current bill for this to happen. The Scottish Government will continue to argue that double majority voting should apply to this referendum. It cannot be right that if Scotland votes in favour of remaining in the EU, it can still be dragged out against its will. That is why the Scottish Government is committed to explaining why Scotland and the UK should remain in the EU and we will argue the positive case for the UK and Scotland's continued membership of the EU. Before the referendum, the Prime Minister wants to renegotiate the terms of the UK's membership of the EU. It is vital that Scotland's voice is heard in this process and that Scotland's interests are protected. We shall be pursuing this with the UK Government. It is still too early to tell exactly what the Prime Minister wants or indeed whether his proposals will require treaty change. This may become clearer during the European Council meeting that begins today and in areas where there is common cause, for example around better regulation, we will support the UK, but proposals to change immigration rules can be difficult for us to accept given the benefits of immigration to our country. In my view, the real risk to the UK's membership of the EU is that the renegotiation process between the UK and the member states is defined in terms of their being winners and losers. That could polarise opinion and focus minds only on what the Prime Minister achieves ignoring the benefits of the EU and what it delivers right now. The whole point about a more effective European Union is that everyone should gain from it compromise should not, in my view, mean concession. I have said before that the EU is not perfect and some areas are in need of reform. That is why we published our agenda for EU reform in August which highlights how the EU institutions must prioritise policies that are responsive to and reflect the concerns of its citizens. We believe that reform that would be beneficial to all member states can take place within the existing treaty framework. That could include more autonomy for member states to tackle pressing issues such as public health or the completion of the single market in services. We also make the case for regulatory reform to address the stock of EU legislation that imposes unnecessary burdens on enterprise and citizens. Turning to a couple of other points, the committee will know that I am greatly concerned by the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean. We will encourage the UK Government to play its part in implementing the priority actions proposed under the EU agenda on migration. We recognise our obligations to refugees and continue to press the UK Government to participate fully in proposed EU action, including relocation and resettlement. I also want to put on record the Scottish Government is committed to the European Convention on Human Rights and will robustly and unequivocably oppose any proposals which weaken its protection. Finally, on the Connecting Scotland inquiry, I welcome the evidence that shows the great variety of Scottish organisations that engage internationally for the benefit of our local communities and partners worldwide. The Government recognises and values the contribution to Scotland's positive global reputation very highly. The international framework, which we discussed at my last session with you and our internationalisation agenda, demonstrates the Government's commitment to support Scottish organisations in their international engagement and will continue our dialogue with stakeholders on how that can best be done. I am happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Thank you. Much like our committee agenda this morning, you managed to pack a lot into that short statement, thank you. Cabinet secretary, I know that the council meeting is the EU council meeting starts today, but the two top agenda items are migration, for example, the Mediterranean crisis and the Greek situation. Do you agree that there is scope for suggesting that the two very important issues are much more important than maybe some of the other agenda items that have been suggested for the meeting today? One of the concerns, I think, is reasonable is that British politicians tend to see their priorities as the main priorities and not recognise that actually in a kind of either European or global sense of the farm there are issues that are taking precedence and our focus might not always be there, because clearly the Greek situation is paramount and is being discussed and resolved, I hope. In terms of the Mediterranean situation, interesting, our reform EU agenda for reform, we actually talked about the need back in August that that should be part of how the EU addressed some of the issues, and there are still not lots of terms that the agenda that it has on migration is very, very important, but reports coming out of the European Council, particularly from the Italians, and again, the Parliament and indeed the committee have been very sensitive to the pressures that are on the Italians in particular, but recognising the issue actually is European-wide. So quite rightly those two agenda items are going to be dominating, and that understands why so. Reports seem to be that David Cameron will be having those discussions about his negotiations for a revised situation over the informal dinner this evening. We don't know until we hear reports as to what is said indeed and what is asked, but you're quite right to focus that just because it's important to our Prime Minister and David Cameron within the United Kingdom doesn't mean that it's top of the agenda for other European countries. Last week, Cabinet Secretary, in this Parliament, we commemorated and celebrated Refugee Week, and we had a reception here, and one of the guest speakers was a survivor of the Mediterranean, and he lost people in a really horrific boat incident last year. His story was very, very, very compelling, not just the tragedies that he'd been through, but the humanity he'd been showing in Italy and then when he arrived here. The Scottish Government has said that they would be interested in relocation and resettlement. Do you think under the UN convention for the refugees that that's a responsibility that we have, not just as a Government, not just as a country, but as a human race that when people are in need, you put out that hand and you don't then just conflate it with an artificial debate about migration and immigration being a bad thing? It's interesting that the debate on human rights has perhaps been within the UK, and a lot of the issues around human rights tended to focus on perhaps what are perceived as negative areas, or very technical areas, or very legal areas, where, of course, the whole point about human rights and convention of human rights is to make sure that the best standards of humanitarian response exist on a global scale. In relation to the issues, there are a number of dimensions to this. One is absolutely the response on the humanitarian level, and I'm very heartened by the collective response cross-party in the Parliament in recent debates and questions that we've had in this chamber recognising that focus and emphasis. Yes, there has to be immediate response to what's happening in the Mediterranean as of now, but this is not something that's new or happened. There have been tens of thousands of people anticipated or are estimated to have died in the Mediterranean over a period of decades. Now, the causes of the issue have to be resolved. They're not going to be resolved immediately. Some of them are war-torn consequences for war-torn countries. Some of it is in relation and will increasingly be a relation to what is happening in the north of Africa in particular in relation to climate change over the long term, where unless collectively, and another reason why we have to act collectively within the European Union and wider, is tackling climate change because long-term pressures will cause issues of migration from that source, as well as the economic issues, as well as indeed the asylum issues from people that are fleeing conflicts areas and the responsibility for some of the degree of conflict there can be cast on the United Kingdom over recent decades of how they've behaved in different wars and different activities. That is a collective responsibility on a whole load of different issues in areas. I think that there's a danger in conflating the immediate short-term issue of humanitarian rescue just now and saying that it's an either or you either do that or you try and tackle the long-term strategic issues. You can do both and it's a requirement that they do both. Again, an argument of why the EU has to do this collectively is that just because the EU is the first protocol of people seeking to come to Europe doesn't mean that they have to bear the complete responsibility. I think that it's really important that that is reiterated. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Good morning, panel. The committee, as you will know, has taken evidence from various sources and one of the sources in particular that concerns me is the college sector who have stated within this committee that they have yet to feel the benefit of the international framework. Is that cabinet secretary telling me what can he strategies she has put in place to overcome this? One of the things that I've done both in this role and indeed previously when I was the education secretary was to encourage the colleges to think more collectively about what they did in the international area. Indeed, I think that it was a former First Minister Henry McLeish that was involved with some of the work of colleges international in terms of what they were doing to try and collectively work to work out what their main opportunities are and what they can do. I've certainly supported colleges, for example, in China of some of the kind of victivities of colleges particularly there, but a lot of what they have to do in terms of rather than working individually, I think there is something to do with the new regionalisation of colleges. It might be easier more strategically for colleges to work in that area, but we are always open to discussion with them. Indeed, our colleagues in the education part, our life on learning part of the Scottish Government will be working with them. They have the focus on education in international areas as well, but I don't know if Colin McLeish said that just to add to the point there that it's important to take forward the work with the college sector to see what we can do. There's a lot of work that's done through Scotland, Europa and others with regard to the European engagement area, which was an area that I certainly know about most on a broader sense. I think having a collective approach to that would make it a stronger area and certainly in our work through the Brussels office we're very keen to work with the college sector to see what we can do to make that engagement in the opportunities. The real opportunities that exist, particularly in the vocational area, now that things like Erasmus have been opened out very much to that area to see how they can take that forward. I suppose that some of the opportunities that I think are more obvious is one of the strengths of the Scottish education system is the Scottish credit and qualifications system and it's one of the few in the world on the same system. That's an area where the expertise and experience and vocational education that our colleges have is sought out of interest elsewhere. Again, I think that's where that collective approach is saying that we've got models that can work that other countries are interested in. A lot of it, they've got to identify what their own asks are and their own approaches. Broad Campbell. Good morning. What common ground there might be with the UK government in terms of re-negotiations? I'm struck by looking at the document that was prepared in August last year of Scotland's agenda for EU reform. Looking at the priority areas, I've kind of rather doubted that whether there was much common ground with the UK government, but possibly in the area of regulatory reform there might be. Can you just expand on your view that there might be any common ground with the UK government? I think that you're right to identify regulation as being one of the key areas that we could and should be able to work on better regulation has been a big push on from our government both domestically and in terms of international area. We had our own regulatory reform act for example in 2014 that set out some of the approaches that we had. Looking at Europe, certainly the refit programme from the EU is one that we've got a lot to contribute to and I think that to be fair, the UK government has contributed already in significant terms in terms of that agenda. I think that it's important to work it out. What are the practical things that could take place that would improve the regulatory framework in Scotland and in the UK with reform? One of the things that we're calling for is proportionate regulation. The greater adherence to the principle of proportionality so that burdensome and complex legislation which is not necessary to achieve the given objectives becomes a thing of the past. Where EU legislation provides for sanctions and penalties for non-compliance with its provisions greater flexibility so that sanctions and penalties align with the level of risk posed by non-compliance. If you look at consistent regulation it's very important to ensure that we prevent competence creep in terms of the European treaties and indeed where regulations are considered to be more appropriate than directives and that's quite important in and of itself to help to relieve some of the burdens. Where regulations are considered to be more appropriate than directives greater use of regulations which creates framework for principles rather than impose detailed rules could be helpful in terms of where we are and transparent regulation and more targeted regulation. Those things can be achieved are part of the agenda on refit in particular but also could assist and could be done without treaty change. I think that's important. Those are practical things that can be done and is probably an area where not only could there be convergence between what the UK is trying to achieve what we want and what member states are already working to towards a reform so whether you call this a renegotiation or whether you call it a continuance of the reform package those are things that we can have a shared agenda on I think how they are presented may be different from David Cameron in terms of his renegotiation and as I said at the outset might be seen or presented by member states but we've got a good role in leading that and that's an area that we could have consensus on I think. In terms of the timetable for the eventual referendum I don't know whether the Scottish Government has a view at all on that but also is there a timetable set up for on-going dialogue with the UK Government as to what's going on beyond the JMCs? We have asked for a more forum to discuss the on-going issues around negotiation so that we should be part of that that's also something that Wales and Northern Ireland would be interested in because clearly the consequences of some of the issues would have an impact and an import on the devolved administrations that was suggested by our First Minister at the British Irish Council which took place just last week on Friday that we would that's our proposal of how that can be done if we just rely on JMCs the problem with JMCs is that they don't meet that often or that regularly The last meeting was last week and Hamza Yousaf, the Minister for Europe attended that again proposing that there be a better way of making sure that on the on-going issues of what comes out even from today and tomorrow for example how do we make sure that we've got a better mechanism for knowing what's there In terms of timescale I suspect that the Prime Minister will choose a date to be able to have the best result from his perspective A crystal ball would need to forecast that I think that there's a window I think that it would be extremely unwise to hold a referendum on EU membership during the period of the UK's presidency of the European Council I think that would just be for a whole variety of reasons unwise for everybody I think that in terms of the negotiation period there's a window there where even already we see the pressures of having other matters and we're going into a period probably into 16-17 of other member states having their own domestic elections and that may be closing the window of what is a reasonable period for negotiation for the Prime Minister in these discussions with other countries so I think that the autumn of 16 looks increasingly the more likely period but it's not in our gift the influence that we've managed to bring to bear already on the bigs in Westminster from different parties that they shouldn't be held on the same day as the Scottish elections and clearly the views of the Electoral Commission that looked at the last time there was a UK referendum on constitution issues and also our own experience of holding local elections and the Parliament elections there's very good objective response from the Electoral Commission in different scenarios as you would expect us to do but we would encourage more engagement from the UK Government with the Scottish Government not just on the technicalities of timing etc but also on content and in terms of the on-going issues Europe is moving a pace on a whole variety of different issues if we just focus on the areas of potential renegotiation there's a danger that Scotland will have other agenda in relation to the EU so I would recommend that the engagement is on the long-term strategic issues within the EU as well as on the negotiation positions of the Prime Minister Hanzala Malik Good morning, cabinet secretary cabinet secretary this committee is going to be collecting a lot of evidence and quite rightly so and it will give an opportunity to understand what is being asked of us and I think that's important as well however what I then want to know is how do we quickly collate all of that information and put it together do we have someone who's going to look at all the information that comes from all the committees to put this together the proposals of what Scotland's aspirations are and how they should be represented not only in the UK Government but in the European Commission because this is a very serious issue as you'll appreciate and I'm just wondering have we got somebody going to be running with this somebody in charge who's actually going to collate all of this information from all the committees to make sure that we maximise the information and our aspirations so that we are represented well I suspect if you're looking at it from a parliament point of view you might be as well to direct your question to your own convener or to the Presiding Officer but I think that's a very important point I might explain what we're doing within Government we have a regular meeting around where the Minister for Europe meets with all the other ministers that have an interest in European issues by and large that's everyone because obviously the impact is on everywhere so that we have a rolling anticipation of issues that we should be either feeding into or clearly in relation to what we hear coming out from the UK as to what their priorities are for negotiation we can be responding and they can obviously feed that into cabinet so we collectively within cabinet can have a view as to issues human rights for example has been the prime area of concern just now but obviously with Michael Gove backtracking on the although not backtracking but has yet to announce what his views are on human rights and what his proposals are that may come back again at the appropriate time but that has been to date a key focus across Government because that affects social justice it affects our own justice portfolios etc from the Parliament's point of view I would like to see all the different committees identifying issues in their portfolios as to the future of you they should be doing that anyway as part of how this term of the Parliament has been set up and to encourage that one thing I would say is that this is of huge importance to us not just in terms of economic issues but in the future of the leadership that Scotland and the UK can have a number of years across Europe climate change is not this one not of this committee or of another committee but bearing in mind as an experienced MSP I know the pressures that are on committees maybe not the ones that has the least legislation as your own other committees will be having a big burden of legislation going into the final year but that shouldn't preclude them taking evidence sessions at different points how you collate that and I'm quite happy to work in terms of Rod Campbell's point we don't really know the timetable for this but perhaps we should have key milestones that we set ourselves as to when we might want to collectively as a Parliament review where we are in relation to what we know about and what consideration is we've obviously had a number of debates just recently on the international framework European agenda area EU reform perspectives and indeed your own work programme as to what you anticipate but I think we could probably work reasonably well together with your convener and your clerks to anticipate particular points in time we might want to revisit where do things stand in the autumn more or less measured my concern it's not a concern but my hope and aspiration and I also agree with you the time issue is an important one the time factor because we don't know how the negotiations are going to go with the UK and the European Union as well so we need to make sure that all the good advice that we get from our citizens we somehow make sure at a very short notice and I think that's what I'm trying to get at is that if we are talking to each other and if we keep the information as it comes in fresh up to date because I appreciate the pressures on everybody and all the committees but I think because this is such an important issue I'm hoping that perhaps between the Scottish Government and our committees we can ensure that all the information that comes in is collated immediately almost we've got it on shelf so if there's any pressures on us in terms of turning things around we're almost there and it's just a matter of testing them down I would like to be in that position and I'm just hoping that you would perhaps agree with me and explore that possibility I think that would be best practice anyway but I think that would be a responsibility convener and we're happy to discuss how we can best do that The UK Government has indicated that it's going to pursue a form of the European Union for the benefit of all member states and it wants to exempt the UK's smallest businesses from too much red tape preserve the integrity of the single market and expand the single market to break down remaining barriers to trade and ensuring that new sectors are opened up to British firms Does the cabinet secretary agree with those aims? I've just gone through the issues around refit in particular and some of the points that we're raising would actually be a benefit to small businesses but a lot of the reform agenda as I said is already happening I suppose the issue is what will be evidence as being new as partner negotiation and is that the real test or is the general direction the committee might not be aware but for example Scotland is contributing already in terms of looking at the habitat directive and how we can actually strip back some of the issues within that to enable progress without it being the burdens that have been there in that directive and necessarily perhaps might have an impact on different organisations or indeed businesses depending on the area they work in so that refit agenda as I said to Rod Campbell that's in the area we've got common ground on and actually our experience on regulatory reform and what we're doing could help that but I think you need to see what we haven't got are practical examples of how we've got an idea of the general area that the Prime Minister wants to work in what we haven't got yet is what does that actually mean in specifics and what specific things does he want to change in relation to opening up areas for business one of the big agenda areas which is of interest to this Parliament and to our Government is on the digital single markets now that's an area where there are significant opportunities for Scotland in particular there are issues we have to be aware of in relation to creative industries and impact on film broadcasting what that might mean that Scotland's digital single market proposals was to the culture council committee which I led on behalf of the UK Government and responded to initially on behalf of the UK Government so those are areas that were if the question is are we practically engaged and interested the answer is yes and I've probably given you two examples where in practical terms Scotland is already plugged in already engaged and certainly want to see progress on that you know what will the Scottish Government's position be on national partners being able to work together to block unwanted legislation which is one of the things that the UK Government has suggested especially in relation to the countries that have their own currencies do you agree with preserving the integrity of the single market by insisting on protection for those countries that have single currencies obviously so much focus because of what's happening particularly in Greece has been on the euro zone and countries that have the euro but obviously with 10 countries not having the euro there's significant interest for those that don't have the euro in terms of their interest and how they're dealt with in terms of power basically you've seen it a regular again this is not a new debate a regular debate within Europe as to where that should lie indeed the last probably tensions or expression of that is with the European Parliament and to what extent does the European Parliament then have locus on the European council in terms of their checks and balances and I think what the Prime Minister is trying to do is to seek further movement in relation to national parliaments to dutch at different times of raised issues in a different way as to how that might happen but of course after 2009 there has been a system by which there can be a kind of flagging up of areas of national concern what David Cameron is proposing I think again we've not got the details we need to see a bit more information but some kind of red card issue which is a veto now we've already got a yellow card and an orange card system in which case the national parliaments can indeed flag up issues and concerns now since 2009 the yellow card has only been used twice now it's important it's there but it's only been used twice one was when in relation to the Monte II proposals in relation to right to strike it was subsequently dropped by the commission the second time it was used in relation to the yellow card system was of course in relation to the European prosecution issue that this Parliament and the committees in this Parliament have dual concerns of and it was flagged up that's only the two issues since 2009 and as regard the orange card I can't give you an example because there hasn't been one so that's an interesting reflection on needing to have a red card when actually the use of the the previous the previous opportunities to flag up and intervene by national parliaments has not actually been used very much and when it has been used in relation to right to strike and the European Public Prosecution Service it wasn't just the United Kingdom that had concerns it was across the rest of the UK particularly on the latter point the Monte points weren't particularly relevant as relevant to us but I think that that shows you that it might be a presentation of an argument of having the power to do something without actually needing the power because it's never been used or hasn't been used as much even in weaker terms previously and your second point was in relation to the currency that I addressed first I think that you did thank you very much have I got time for one more small moment? one of the difficulties of the euro going down that Scotland faces is that our agricultural subsidies are going to be worth a lot less this year than they would otherwise does the cabinet secretary understand what the difficulties this will produce for Scottish farming? well in terms of relation to subsidy it's very important that we have a buoyant European economy in general terms that obviously some of that is reliant on what's happening in the eurozone a lot of it is also reliant on an expansion of the economy more widely so it's in our interest to have a buoyant European economy more generally in terms of Scotland obviously our exports a lot of them are agricultural are very dependent on work they are one of the things we don't just work in isolation is to say the state of Scottish agriculture will always just rely on the value of the euro or not on the value of the euro we've got to pursue other areas for example one of the things you might be interested in in relation to the wider connecting Scotland agenda the First Minister just announced that we're going to have an innovation investment hub location of the Scottish Government within Dublin one of the areas of co-operation will be on agriculture now clearly in many ways we are competitors with Ireland in agriculture but on a global scale in terms of some of our promotion so that isn't reliant on the value of the euro that's also reliant on developing good relationships and for example the access 6 programme is a very good example of co-operation of Scotland and Ireland in relation to working collaboratively with food and drink companies SMEs in particular which is really important in terms of growth in relation to accessing European money and funding so we can't just rely on the value of Europe to determine the strength of our system but in terms of subsidies quite clearly in relation to agriculture and you've heard this argument before but we have one of the lowest percentages in relation to subsidy in terms of agriculture than any other country and that's not in relation to anything to do with the value of the euro it's just because we're not an independent country and it would have been a different matter had the country voted differently at the last election but I'm not going to go there because we've had that result and I accept it but you know there are different pressures and dynamics Thank you very much Adam Englom Thank you convener Can I just explore a little bit about First Minister's proposal that there needs to be a forum identified which would allow the devolved Governments a direct input into the negotiations How was that received by the UK Government? My understanding is that we've not really had a response from it I wasn't at the British Irish Council so I wasn't at the discussions that took place but I think that there's a view that this is a reserved matter so therefore the UK doesn't have to consult and I find that very odd because of course there'll be an impact we've just had a big discussion on agriculture, we've discussed business these are issues that are devolved to Scotland a lot of the responsibilities never mind the impact on the domestic services that we have in Scotland that rely on the very well qualified workers that we have here the skilled workers that we have so it's not just simply that somehow the relationship with the European Union is technically a reserved matter quite clearly and it's already been recognised that there are issues that need to be involved I'll put this case as well we were invited by the UK Government in the balance of competencies review because it was recognised not just ourselves and at the GMC Europe Committee Wales and Northern Ireland were invited to take part because quite clearly they realised and understood the impact and import of any changes to the balance of competencies which is what they were trying to do in relation to the negotiations would have an impact on us so having invited us to provide evidence which we duly did and which also informed our own reform agenda that we published last year having invited us to take part in it all of a sudden we're not we're being disinvited to be part of the discussions so I think it is I think it's not just a case of trying to influence things for our own agenda I think it would be sensible to have that co-operation and involvement and whether it's more regularly within the regular contact within the GMC Europe structure that we need to meet more regularly or in a different form is because some of it is on business some of it is on other areas that we could actually the bilaterals that we have and we could just expand that you know for example the finance ministers meet on a bilateral and indeed sometimes quadrilateral basis we also need to try and look at that in relation to Europe we're doing it on welfare think about it in terms of the welfare issues in relation to the Scotland Bill why would you not see developments in a similar vein that we need to then have the dialogue between the relevant ministers any support from the committee in this area would be helpful I think but I think it's sensible not just a case of we want to because we want to make a political argument it's because actually it's common sense to do that I think there's a bit of an irony in the UK Government going to Europe trying to unpick a union as it were and there's so vociferous defenders of the United Kingdom as is at the moment but they do seem to be to take a very little Englander kind of attitude anglo-centric approach that needs to be that needs to be adjusted to take into account the four nations of the United Kingdom it seems to be driven very much by conservative party politics as opposed to the national interest as it were so I just wondered with regards to the Scottish Government's viewpoint is there any scope for devolution of powers from Europe to Scotland to the Scottish Parliament I'm thinking in terms of the likes of the fishing industry we were arguing for a more regional kind of approach to things so we could have a really distinctive voice in terms of any negotiation with Europe if it was a serious negotiation because some allege that what we're seeing here is more a critical exercise on behalf of the UK Tory Government to satisfy its back ventures as we're taking on Europe and they're going to announce of achieved this, that and the next thing when they come back but it won't amount to Hello Beans is there a real agenda here to be pursued in terms of repatriating some powers that would have more would improve governance in Scotland? I think that's a very interesting analysis because we're quite clear there is a real agenda here for reform that we want to pursue that we can engage with that is sensible that actually could achieve real results, part of it on the regulation issues but you're making a very good point about realisation that clearly in fisheries policy that clearly is what we think should happen and there's been an extent some progress with the fisheries policy but we really we could and should make progress and there's a danger that in pursuing a very narrow political agenda and that's my concern is the negotiation it was 10 areas now I think it's down to 5 in broad areas it could become so narrow that we actually miss some of the progress that we could make in other areas and actually areas where other parts of the European Union would want to engage on that agenda as well and your political point I suppose it's the strength that the Prime Minister may or may not have in trying to engage other countries if it's perceived by other countries reflecting your remarks that this is all about appeasing the backbenchers as his own political party as opposed to taking the country on a journey of change then that completely weakens a negotiating position and actually the real negotiation we want are on the areas of doing more of a social Europe that's an area in terms of how we improve the opportunities the big successes in the past have been on issues around workers' rights or equality issues a whole variety of areas there again on climate change the UK has been very strong we have supported them in European council but if we are diverted in talking just about a narrow agenda on negotiation that doesn't impact on the environment and social issues on the real impact we could be missing missing the trick here so that's why I do think that I've probably been more circumspect in my remarks about the politics of what David Cameron is doing but that's the danger of it and actually we need a voice of reason which I think the Scottish Parliament and the committees within the Parliament can be about saying it's not a case of choice between reform and no reform it's actually about having reform that will be meaningful will have impact on jobs and the organisations that we have but that's about the European Union has never been something that's stuck in aspects it's always moved I just want us to be constructive in moving it forward and in the pace I think we can do that and actually increasingly the Scottish voice is being listened to Thank you cabinet secretary just on the back of my colleague Adam Engelms questions there one of the recommendations for the Smith commission is to move the current concordat on the co-ordination of European Union policy on the EU and given that I believe the cabinet office guidance issued does not allow you to share any of the GIMC stuff until after the council meeting can you give us a wee update on whether there's been any progress on the update to that concordat via the Smith recommendations and whether you believe that that's the transparency that should to be there is not there I mean I think it's fair in terms of our relations with the UK Government the meeting was only last week we always give you feedback on the GIMC Europe meetings I've asked Hamza Yousaf as the minister for Europe to now lead on those meetings I used to do that he's now doing that I will attend if required and when required but in terms of progress we've provided evidence over recent months of what could and should happen we've given them examples of good practice as well as when things haven't worked as well to try and encourage particularly colleagues in Brussels to have a better relationship with us I think the example of my leading the UK on the additional audiovisual council was quite important I got a chance to influence the position in line and the UK was wanting to take in terms of what I said and managed to adapt that in a way that I thought was more conducive to our interests but also the UK's interests that's a good example but I would reflect that the only council we ever seem to be able to get to lead on and speak on from behalf of the UK is that council which is the one that is the education youth sport culture council I think practice and elsewhere would be helpful but in terms of a more formal response about amending the memorandum of understanding that is still a load of commitment and the agreement is to do that we have yet to see anything but Colin you might be able to provide any further information on that yes I mean it's an area where there's been work going on for the past few months at official level to follow up the commitments that were given at the joint ministerial council at principal level at the prime minister and first minister level last December and as the cabinet secretary said we've provided evidence we've also been working with the UK permanent representation in Brussels with our Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues to provide examples of how we can strengthen the role of the officers over there to make sure that we have more impact but the cabinet secretary is absolutely right we're still waiting on the detail of progress and we're not the only country that does this or seeking to do this other countries on a regular basis and see it as part of their constitutional arrangement to do that I've heard evidence from some of the regions across Europe and the rights and responsibilities and some of the practice that's conferred on them to represent their issues from a local point of view as well which Colin... I understand that we had us a seminar here in Edinburgh with the Europe Institute jointly held with the Flanders Government and the University of Leuven which was actually a really useful opportunity to look at probably the most sophisticated way in which regional bodies can actually represent their countries effectively and I think a crucial issue reach agreements in line with the negotiation timetables that exist in Europe there's always been a fear that somehow they might block the ability to UK to negotiate but actually we had representatives from the Foreign Office there who were actually some positive elements and these are the arguments we're putting forward in conjunction with our Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues to seek to make some improvements and with the Brussels end being the one where there is some progress but we're still need to see what's going to be proposed at the UK end Flanders has got a very excellent example we've had them in front of the committee before and certainly on my visit to New York I visited them in New York and to see the reach and the scope and the opportunities they have in the US, not just within Europe but that wider scope as well was very interesting indeed I'm going to move on quickly to Willie Coffey Thank you very much, convener it's hard I think to envisage the Prime Minister rushing into the referendum holding up a victory on exempting the smallest businesses from new EU regulations and making that a referendum breaker I think for some the big issue the big ticket issue is migration and immigration and you mentioned that in your opening remarks Cabinet Secretary from the evidence that we've heard at the committee so far we know that there are bigger numbers migrants coming to the UK from outside the European Union and from within the European Union so could you outline for us what the difference in thinking is between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the immigration issue and whether you think that issue itself will ultimately require a treaty change at the end of the day well the problem is we don't actually know what the Prime Minister's position is that's the real issue and actually if you look at the broad areas in terms of what we understand is issues are issues that aren't actually about necessarily migration it's actually about benefits it's not actually necessarily about from what we can gather it's actually about restricting rights of migrants when they've been in work to claim benefits and that's a different issue than their broader agenda about migration and total numbers etc so in terms of what's in our interests our interests in migration is that we want to have talented people skilled people, committed people to come here and work and contribute to our society and they do and we've seen very good reports for example from the University of London showing the benefits the economic benefits that there's far more economic benefit of migrants to Scotland and in the UK than there are just benefits and they are net contributors to our economy so if you didn't have those migrants who's going to pick up the tab for the taxes that they were paying to our economy to pay for health education etc so you can see things to the different lens depending on where you're coming from but the issues he's got are in relation to benefits so when he can have benefit change and whether the benefit changes he wants would restrict freedom of movement that's where you've had quite clearly across European expressions that this is a fundamental red line for many of the countries they've made that quite explicit if however he's wanting to get into the not minutia but the detail of when when migrants from the EU can or cannot claim benefits that's a different territory so benefits is a different territory necessarily than trying to be very crude about numbers of migrants coming from the EU and indeed whether the benefit aspects would influence or change how many people came from different parts of the EU so across the EU you've got different systems as you might appreciate in terms of benefits some are contributing some are to do with residency and the issues that some countries have and indeed it's not even a new discussion it was discussed in 2011 that providing the Netherlands and Germany at the time is your definition of what your benefits are and it's actually sometimes perhaps easier for those that have a contributory benefits system that you get your benefits after you have contributed for a certain length of time it might be easier for them to adapt their situation for EU migrants than it is for those countries that have a residency basis and I think I'm speculating here because again I have no detail, this is a level of detail we've not even had from the UK Government as to what they're looking at countries have changed the system Ireland changed their system a couple of years ago and it didn't require treaty change but it was a change to the benefits system and I think the issue we have if you cast this as an issue about migration and you hit against the freedom of movement which is quite clearly a basic tenet of the European Union in its treaties that would be a problem if he's wanting to try and amend an adaptive benefits issue well that's a different issue and of course the UK system is already different from other countries and a lot of it might be about what he does internally and the issue then would that require treaty change or agreement but again there have been some changes by some countries for example some of the discrepancies between Denmark and Sweden as to how students for example were treated in relation again we have this idea that everything is new under the sun in terms of because it comes from Britain whereas actually quite often some of these issues have been looked at but done in a more I suppose more very practical level by other countries in the past but until we have the detail all I'm giving you is a speculation and analysis of what's been until we know what the actual ask is it's very difficult for us to give you a view Do you think there's even time for treaty change if that were required within the rough time frame or looking at it's 2017 I think It makes messages sometimes you get messages from the UK previously from Philip Hammond it was the end result that mattered whether or not it required treaty change or not and then you get an emphasis oh it's all about treaty change again this goes back to Adam Ingram's point the treaty change aspect seems to be probably about managing the back benches of the Conservative party achieving change deferred treaty change at some point in the future might be something he could try and achieve but I think there's also been a bit of speculation that there might have been some anticipation by the UK Government that would be treaty change required for other reasons by other countries in relation to the eurozone at some point and again that looks in some of the discussions and reports coming out of France and Germany discussions that perhaps treaty change might not be required to what they're trying to achieve in relation to their aspect so the UK might have wanted to piggyback on what might have been happening anyway by opening up the treaties for other reasons again just speculation again though it gives you an idea that in terms of time frame that any major treaty change that other countries might have for other reasons are unlikely to happen when they're running into elections and obviously France and Germany elections in 2017 might have an impact in timescale so again this is all I suppose in committee you're looking for evidence I can't provide you evidence because the facts and the proposals aren't actually there but it's something to consider and I think we need to keep close to as we proceed Cabinet secretary just very quick supplementary on that the EU commission has had a bit of a reshuffle yesterday and have appointed Jonathan Fall whose responsibility will be analysis in response to Brexit so obviously the EU commission is now taking this very very seriously that the potential for lots of change there and he's working very very closely with Franz Timmerman who is better regulation which has obviously been an issue for this committee this morning is the Scottish Government being invited to take part in that group? The one that was just set up yesterday I haven't opened my mail yet so I'm not sure I have we will look obviously aware of the appointment by the president you incur of the individual that you mentioned in terms of our discussions we will work with other European institutions primarily with the UK Government that's where we've got to have our primary relationship in terms of influencing it included in that group or at least given a hearing by them well I think I'd reserve judgment to where that might go and why that's there in terms of our accountability in terms of our accountability it's we don't have a direct accountability to the European Commission our accountability is to you in this Parliament and also in terms of our relationships how we might work so in relation to planning for Brexit actually I want to plan not for Brexit but that's where we'll be putting more of our time and attention it's not just in Britain's interests it's in Scotland's interests as well and that's where we have our emphasis but I think it's quite right to say that there's a certain complacency that there's an anticipation that even if it came to a referendum the vote would be to remain in and we certainly see that in terms of the polls in Scotland that would seem to be likely but any referendum any referendum in any country at any time and if we learn anything from our own referendum more recently you can have quite a lot of change in polls and positioning as you lead up into particularly the immediacy before the referendum so I don't think we should be complacent in any shape or form and those of us who want to see Scotland and the UK remaining part of the European Union have to be active in setting out that positive case don't wait until the referendum bills pass, don't wait until we hear what the negotiating position is we should be making that case now because it's one that we continuously doing as politicians to justify the relationships and memberships that we are all agreed on and I think that the European Union membership is one that I hope this Parliament will support the Government in campaigning in a very positive way to remain a part of Thank you very much, I'll put you under a bit of pressure there actually so sorry about that very quick last supplementary from Adam Ingram Very brief questions just changing tact to our connecting Scotland inquiry how are you doing in terms of your pursuing the issue of post study work visas with the UK Government is one brief question In terms of trying to pursue the agenda Humza Yousaf had a very useful meeting with one of the senior members within the Westminster parliamentary system to make sure that Westminster parliamentary system is aware of our issues, he did that recently I think that he's also meeting the characters today or tomorrow with the cross party group that's been established on post study work visa so there's membership for example, Claire Baker and I think it's Liz Smith from the Conservatives we have 159 names from institutions, from universities, from colleges, from businesses that are supporting the position we think that this is again probably an area where with a Scottish consensus around it which we're looking to seek and build we can have influence, we're not there yet but I think the establishment of that cross party working group on the post study work visa is an important development I'm sure, convener, that if you sought evidence from the minister from Europe as to progress on that at the appropriate time you'd be more than willing to share that with you I know that the devolution committee took some evidence from university principles earlier on the UKVI issue so it's maybe something we should communicate with them on as well I'm going to finish there because we are on time but we do have a full agenda cabinet secretary I thank you very much for your evidence to commit to this one we do probably have some other questions that we would like to raise with you is it okay to write to you and seek some of that sort of communication yes indeed and we can discuss time scales for response etc thank you very very much indeed and good luck I'm going to suspend briefly just to allow us to change over witnesses so if you want to get a very very quick break maybe two minutes or so good morning and welcome back to the European and External Relations Committee and moving on to agenda item 2 and our second cabinet secretary of this morning and the focus of this agenda item is European structural funds can I welcome to committee cabinet secretary of infrastructure investment and cities, Keith Brown, good morning cabinet secretary and supporting in this morning Shane Rankings the deputy director of European structural funds in the Scottish Government cabinet secretary I believe you have a brief opening statement thank you very much and thanks for the invitation to come along to speak to the committee as you'll know I provided the committee with an update on structural funds in advance and I hope you found that useful and of course we'll be happy to respond on that but if I could just start with a few remarks about the to put that update which I provided previously in some context not least because I'm well aware that the committee has received substantial submissions on structural funds from three important and experienced stakeholders as the committee knows we're in the second year of the new EU seven year funding cycle we've got a new commission new priorities and new programs I think it's fair to say that we have some significant issues in terms of the audit weaknesses which have been exposed by that process organisations which previously secured structural funds are hoping that the commission's priority will be to be able to continue to work with the committee so that we can continue to work with the committee so that we can continue to work with the committee so that we can continue to work with the committee so that we can continue to work with the committee so that we can worries massiveilled all the whether we have that that technology is going to come into the approach so that we can continue to work with the committee so that we can continue to work with the committee cymdeithasol i gynlluniaid o'r cyffordd. Mae'r SCO yn hyn o'r cymdeithasol yn ddechrau'n ddau i ddau i'r trifesio ac mae'r ddau i'r cyfrannu pefagorol yn ysgrifesio. Mae'n mynd i chi, wedi gael ei wneud am y cyfnodol y trafnodau. Mae'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'r gweithio o'r pwg oedgen i gael eich ffôr, ac i'n mynd i'n gweithio i'r gweithio i gael i'r gweithio alternative gap funding in place, particularly for the national third sector bodies, but also for local authorities who use structural funds to support third sector bodies in their localities. I think that what's different in this funding cycle is the economic crisis in 2008, which I think drove the commission and member states expectations of the 2014-20 structural funds. So the priority for the funds has become much more focused on economic growth and youth unemployment. For that reason, there's a significant allocation for youth unemployment in, for example, South West Scotland. Hence, the expectation is well that the new Scottish programmes will concentrate their funds on innovation, business competitiveness and higher-level skills, and not so much as previously on tourism and physical regeneration, which I think we recognise as extremely important, but given the programmes are not considered as a higher priority as the earlier areas are mentioned, business competitiveness, higher-level skills and innovation. Also, they seek to try and foster economic growth across Europe and make Europe more competitive with China and the US. What's not different in this new funding cycle is the commission's focus on sound financial management of structural funds. They can't avoid that. I think that you will know, just as well as me, the pressures that there are on the commission to make sure that their accounts are in order and that they can account for the public expenditure that they are involved in. So we quite correctly are closely and constantly monitored by the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors. It's fair to say that the 2007-13 Scottish programmes were quite regularly criticised by commission auditors for having too many projects and the interruptions to those programmes prove that point. We've been therefore determined to avoid where we can the same kind of audit difficulties in new programmes. The committee will know that interruptions are triggered when organisations receiving funds are found not to have complied with EU regulations, the rules of the programmes or the procurement or state aid law, or where we cannot, after several years, trace the receipts for expenditure or invoices or staff timesheets. It's absolutely correct to expect sound management of structural funds, but that does and has caused difficulties and disruption for smaller organisations who have to repay funds or to have their grants cancelled after several weeks' work and that can be a severe interruption to their activities. We've taken advantage of the requirement that we concentrate structural funds on a limited number of key themes to focus funds through Scottish Government policy directorates, its agencies and local authorities, on the basis that those organisations should have match funding and the capacity to cope with regulatory compliance, which has increased over recent years, and the considerable EU audit burden, which has always been associated with structural funds. In conclusion, those organisations also have the capacity to run procurement and challenge fund processes into which the smaller organisations who would previously bid directly for structural funds can now bid without having to carry the audit burden and risk directly. Our approach is yielding fewer projects, but much wider use of procurement and simplified costing methods. It means that, for instance, structural funds are being used to expand a big lottery poverty and social inclusion programme, which means that third sector bodies now don't have to apply separately for big funding, big lottery funding and then structural funds. It means that local authorities can procure local third sector organisations to deliver employability programmes without those organisations having to be in themselves accountable to European auditors. It also means that business gateway can be expanded to support local growth companies in partnership with the Scottish Central Prize and HIE. I won't go any further than that just now, convener, but I think I've tried to illustrate our approach and demonstrate our concern not to put smaller organisations at risk and also our concern to make best use of delivery capacity and available match funding, but also our overriding concern, which I know is a concern of the committee, to achieve the best possible impact on the structural funds. Can I start with a question on the transitional funding for islands and islands minister? The UHI report to us that it has concerns that the concentration of activity in timescales does not allow for the intentions with the Highlands and Islands territorial committee to be fully realised. They go on about a process often being rushed with papers coming out very late and information being circulated with insufficient time to agree a co-ordinated regional response. Can you comment on that and say how it could be improved or what the matter is? I think that there is a tension there, there is no question of that, between trying to do these things as quickly as possible. We do have, I think it's fair to say, criticism from others that we're taking too long with some of these programmes, so I think that it's just at that point, as I said in opening statement, that it's a difficult part, the transition period's the most difficult part of that, and there are undoubtedly tensions. I'm happy though if the member wants to write to me with the specific concerns that UHI have, where they've seen that's something that's come to them with, as they would see it, implied by the member's question that it's been given insufficient time for a response and to look at that to see if we can improve that, but I think that that is one of the tensions at this part of the transitional period. My second question is, in your letter to Ask of the 18th, you talk about the former suspensions to the social funds. Of 144 million euros, down to errors. Can you tell us what those errors were and what percentage of the total programme the errors represented in terms of percentage and money terms? I'll perhaps bring Shane Ranker in shortly, because he was involved in the process previously as well, as I've taken on responsibility for this from October. My understanding, the errors various, I think I mentioned some of them in opening statement in terms of a lack of audit trail, so receipts not being kept. Sometimes the funds that were sought were for projects that changed after the funds had been received in some particular respects. So there's been a number of reasons why these errors have occurred, but in relation to the detail of that and also the percentage of what the total spend would be. Maybe I ask Shane to come in and answer that for me. In addition, the other principal reason for the errors was procurement failures of one kind or another. The procurement failures are typical across Europe. There's something like 40 per cent of the errors across Europe are down to procurement failures, which become more and more challenging as the years go on. You've asked specifically about the amount of money. The overall error rate, I think—there were two error rates on the two programmes of Highlands and Islands in the lowland programme. I think the error rate was about 3.9 per cent in the Highlands and Islands, and it was 8.8 in the rest of Scotland. That was a provisional error rate, submitted to the commission in the 2014 annual control report in December. After further work with the grant recipients, those error rates have reduced to 2.3 per cent in the Highlands and Islands and 3.8 are thereabouts in the lowlands. In terms of the specific funds at risk, somewhere in the region of 1.4 million, I think, will be recovered and represents the scale of the error in the programmes. It's worth saying that, from a technical point of view, these errors are obviously very disturbing, but there are errors and interruptions across Europe. There's something like 77 in the ERDF site at the moment and something similar in the ESF site, so it's about half the programmes at any one time that are interrupted across Europe. In view of the fact that there were errors in the previous programme and the 2006 programme and that a system was set up which was meant to stop these errors happening, are you disappointed by the number of errors that the same to be? First of all, yes. Given that, as I said, I have taken responsibility for this from October to find out the error rate, it was as high as that in the early four in some places, 5 per cent. The reputational damage to Scotland, as well as the individual organisations, is substantial. There's a lot of work going on from the officials concerned to get it down below 2 per cent, which is really quite important for other reasons, in terms of how much clawback there is. By and large, what's happening here is that the Scottish Government has to stand in to where clawback or moneys are not passed on from the commission, but we've passed them on already to organisations. We have to pay for that, so of course it's in our interest to work those down. The fact that it's all persisted after the last structural funds programme, which was a member's question, I think, is worrying, but it also explains why we've done what we've done now in terms of the simplified procedures and also in terms of the way we've structured it so that we make sure that the organisations by and large, which will have a managing role, are ones that have the capacity to make sure that they put the audit processes in place. I think that we have learned lessons from the past and we've determined that we shouldn't see that high-level error rate happen in future. The new simplified costs, have they been approved? That's the process that we are following, yes. Yes. Because the consul response says that there's been significant effort to create new simplified costs. How much of that effort was funded by technical assistance? Gene Dewey? The effort is, in two parts, the effort by Scottish Government officials, but also by the lead partners, the agencies that will use the simplified costs, and the technical assistance is only used to fund the managing authority, the civil service side of that, so no technical assistance was used, other than for the existing Scottish Government officials who were involved. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, convener. I've got two questions. The first one is a general one, and the second one is more specific. The first one is with regards to how the Scottish structural fund programmes will contribute to Scotland's achievements of the five Europe 2020 targets. I think that I've highlighted some of those in my opening statements, not least in relation to innovation and competitiveness. I think, though, what the commission has asked us, or what we've agreed in terms of the funding programmes, is that they will reflect our new economic strategy, which, as you'll know, shifted a focus on to the fact that we, I think, 2007-2014, our economic strategy spoke very much about sustainable economic growth, but what we've done now is shift that to include the fact that we can have economic growth, but it's not shared by everybody. We're not achieving what we need to achieve, so there's been some synergy in relation to that. For example, some of the other areas that I haven't mentioned in my opening statement, low-carbon transport, some very exciting projects in relation to that, which will obviously help both the 2020 goals but also our longer-term goals in terms of carbon emissions. Just up the road in university, we've done an excellent programme with them and various other partners working across Scotland to help to achieve that. In terms of low-carbon infrastructure, we have £55 million in the ERDF going into that sustainable economic growth. I mentioned business competitive innovation, and just to give the member an idea of the level of priority attached to that, £65 million under the ERDF for business competitive, £65 million for innovation, £40 million for access to finance and also £35 million for next-generation broadband investment. In terms of sustainable growth, £25 million for low-carbon transport, £55 million for low-carbon infrastructure and £45 million for the resource-efficient circular economy accelerator—don't ask me to explain exactly what that means, but it gives some idea of the priorities that we attach in trying to achieve the goals for 2020. It's also worth saying on the ESF side, inclusive growth, £156 million, so the biggest chunk of money going into that, which reflects what I was saying in terms of making sure that economic prosperity is shared equally and £40 million for social inclusion and combating poverty. Those are some of the things that will help us to achieve, and that's the kind of priority that we're attaching to it. I was particularly interested in how to raise the employment rate that the programmes have been used and how to reduce poverty. Those are the two of the 2020 objectives that obviously dovetail with the Scottish Government strategy. I was saying all the other aspects of that, so business competitiveness, we think, will help to increase employability. I mentioned the skills that are on as well. If you take that in concert with the other things that the Scottish Government is doing in terms of living wage—it's our view that if you pay a living wage, by and large the people that will earn a living wage will spend—I think that we discussed this at the ICI committee a couple of weeks ago—they will have to spend the money that they earn, and they should earn a wage that they can live on. However, by doing that, that increases economic activity, which in turn helps the prospects for employability. We've also been concerned to make sure that access to employability, so again, a previous discussion was about supported employment, which increases access for everybody to the job market as well. I would point out how to say that this works in concert with other aspects of Scottish Government policy, in particular procurement, which I'm responsible for as well. I can ask my specific question. It's really to do with the concerns raised by SCVO that the use of public sector agencies to manage the structural fund programmes posed a risk to innovative approaches being adopted in addressing socio-economic issues such as the ones that I was highlighting there. They argue that innovation and a priority for the social economy are the most obvious casualties of such a public sector-led strategy. Would you care to comment on those criticisms? I've had a number of discussions with the SCVO, including a meeting with the Deputy Chief Executive to discuss some of those concerns. I would say that a number of the concerns that they have raised in the submission mirror the concerns that they raised in the last transition period. As I mentioned, that is a time of anxiety. I am very alive to those concerns, but I'm also alive to the fact that we cannot be having the level of interruptions that we had before and clawback of money that can be very damaging to the organisation concern to the Scottish Government and to Scotland's reputation in the EU. There is that tension. The public authorities that you mentioned tend to have a greater capacity for that audit function going forward and can sustain that. It takes what we're trying to do to take some of that burden away, but I'm very concerned about the SCVO's anxieties about that. As I said, I've met with them. We've set up a particular forum where they can meet directly with officials from the Scottish Government. I've met them, and Alex Neil has met them. The first meeting that has taken place of the third sector forum I think was very positive, but I've said that I'm more than happy to meet them again and go through this with them. However, I don't apologise for the fact that we have to make sure that we take the action that is necessary to avoid, first of all, a very high audit burden on some organisations. It can become quite a disproportionate cost to a small organisation to perform that audit function correctly. We are trying to help, but I'm aware of the anxieties. We have met with them and listened to those, and we'll continue to do that. I wonder if there is a change to co-financing of programmes in the last meeting. Did that impact on the problems that you mentioned? Was that a cause of the problem? There is an issue about some of the public bodies that we've spoken to being better placed to access match funding, which will increase the pot that is available. One of the other concerns that the SCBO raised is that it felt that there was a lack of transparency in the discussions between the Scottish Government and local government. I'm very keen that transparency should be there. I've asked officials to look at how we can improve that transparency. Are they aware of what we're doing? I think that they are aware of why we're trying to do it, but they still have those concerns. We'll continue to try to meet those concerns and to discuss them with them. I wonder if you want to say anything further on co-financing. The co-financing issue goes to the heart of the change, because the old programmes generated something like 800 projects for about £800 million. It meant that there were very small projects in the audit burden on small organisations, as the minister just said, and it was very disproportionate. The move to strategic interventions and concentrative funding is a device whereby large organisations, public organisations that typically provide the match funding to the smaller ones in the first place, combine it before they offer it to them so that it simplifies the whole process. The large organisations take the audit burden rather than the smaller ones, and procurement, flat rates and simplified costs are all measures that simplify that audit trail and that it's all agreed up front what will be paid for what, and the actual cost methodology, which causes the audit trail issue that the minister referred to, is avoided if we can establish all of these things. However, there are tensions and the guidance and advice from the commission on those things that make establishing the simplified cost quite challenging. I understand the total value to Scotland of all these structural funds is near enough 2 billion euro, and about roughly half of that comes directly from the European Union itself. What would the impact in Scotland be for all of these programmes if the UK was to leave the European Union? I think that one thing is worth doing, it would be very hard to quantify what the impact is, which is one of the worrying things about it, but we receive around 900 million pounds, and obviously this would be, if we were to lose any significant chunk of that, would be very detrimental. Obviously, organisations and the Scottish Government plan some years ahead with the anticipation of receiving these funds. If there was a threat to those funds, even if that threat did not eventually materialise, people would have to take decisions early on to try and anticipate that threat. I think that the damage if we were to be forced out of the EU could be substantial. Quite a substantial amount of it is already committed and I think that could not be changed, but the uncertainty that we create could be extremely damaging. You are often talking about programmes that impact very directly on people's lives, disadvantaged people's lives, so I think that the cost, whatever the eventual cost in finances, it would be hard to quantify that, the costs in terms of uncertainty and the damage to these programmes could be substantial. Is there any commitment or even discussion with the UK Government about should there be an exit from the European Union, the UK making up that particular shortfall, because if the funding suddenly ceases from Europe, then either the programmes end or they continue to be funded from other sources? Is there any discussion or commitment from the UK that they might make up any shortfall, though? There has been no commitment of that kind. As the process towards the referendum gets under way, that question is going to be asked. We will be asking that question in the Scottish Government. We are very keen, as a Government in the referendum that is coming to take the very positive approach about the benefits of Europe, so we are not looking to concentrate unnecessarily on some of the downsides to that. We are trying to make sure that we are as positive as possible, but you are quite right to say that we should have the best and clearest information possible about what would be the effect of a no vote. It is still the UK Government's position that they will not want to reform the EU but want to stay in, I think that that is the latest position. We should work with that, but you are right that we should understand what the risk will be. I think that that will become clearer as the referendum campaign goes forward, but we will be asking those questions. You mentioned the youth employment initiative, which is particularly important for the south-west, Scotland. Is that one of the programmes that will continue after the revisions that you outlined in your opening remarks? There is the extra programme that you are right to devise for regions with youth unemployment. That was in 2012, when youth unemployment was in excess of 25 per cent. That allowed concentrated funding on measures that would assist young people under 29 into work or training. The south-west region qualifies and received that funding. It has to be committed by the end of 2015. It is worth saying that the total programme for south-west Scotland in that regard is around £100 million, so that is being committed by the end of this year. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Good morning, Mr Rankin. I apologise if you think that you have already covered the ground, but some of the information from the CBO also told the committee that, as a result of the reduced involvement of the third sector marginalised group in society, we are not being reached. Can the cabinet secretary express what we are doing in Scotland for to try to reach those hard-to-reach groups and how we are supporting them? On the first part of the question, which, as you rightly say, we have had some discussion of, there is no attempt to try and not work with the CBO. I think that what we have done has been, in our view, trying to be helpful to the CBO. There work is about trying to reach marginalised people, and we want to try and help them to do that. If we can take some of the risk away from the audit function and some of the burden that applies, that should help them to reach more people in relation to that. That is overall aim. Despite that, you still have the representation from the CBO, which expresses concerns. One of the main concerns, as I mentioned earlier on, is that they think that they would like to be more transparent about the discussions that the Government is having with local government to make sure that those concerns are being addressed. We are determined to do that to make it as transparent as possible, but we are not trying to cut them out of the process. We are trying our best to address those concerns. As to the actual programmes themselves, I have mentioned some of the programmes previously that we had. We have the employment pipelines for youth employment, social inclusion and combating poverty. We are particularly focused on rural programmes to across Scotland, because rural poverty often seems to be mentioned, if at all, after urban poverty. We have those programmes to try and do that. The way that we are approaching the administration of the structural funds is to help them to maximise their impact. I have two points that I was hoping to raise with you today. First is broadband and Biify facilities across Scotland. There are a lot of parts of Scotland that we just do not have the service. The European Union reduced the funds, so I know that there are challenges before we even kick off. One of the things that I was hoping that you might be able to shed some light on is, if, for example, there are organisations that have received funding and have not been able to deliver, could we negotiate that that money can then be passed on to that sector to try and bridge that gap that we have? On the first point that you raised, I think that we acknowledge how much work there is to be done, not just in broadband but even in terms of mobile phone connectedness. This is not an excuse for where we are at, because I do not think that where we are at is satisfactory. This year, I went to Canada for Scotland week, and they have exactly the same issues. Although it is worth thinking about the fact that they talked about how you provide broadband effectively without having a large population in many parts of Canada to sustain that, we could fit into one of the provinces quite comfortably—a number of the provinces in Canada quite comfortably—but they have the same issues there. I do not think that those issues are unique to Scotland, but we have to improve it. I should say that the lead for digital connectivity rests with Mr Swinney, but I have a responsibility there as well. We are trying to maximise that, and a lot of the funding is not actually—some of it is EU funding but is also the bulk of it from the UK Government. We rely on the funding that comes from them as well. As I understand it, we can take it to the point of whether we can use funds not spent in one area for this. It is possible to do that from rural programmes and to put that into broadband, but maybe I should ask Shane to come in the detail of that. Sure. There has been an allocation from the current programmes for the current broadband programme, and that will hopefully be drawn down in the next six months to support digital investment. In the new programmes, we have been somewhat limited in terms of the capacity to use broadband infrastructure. The commission did not see this as a priority for the UK, but they were persuaded that in the rural and remote parts of Scotland there was definitely an argument, which even more unusually we persuaded them that there was a rural. From the rural programmes, there should be an allocation specifically for broadband, so that has been made, and that will continue to support the investment and the roll-out of the infrastructure and programme over the next six, seven years, whatever it is. If I could just add to the point that you made by the member that, in terms of infrastructure, in my previous show, as Minister for Transport, there was a great deal of focus quite rightly on rail and road and other infrastructure in terms of connectedness, but there is no question that, for many people, broadband connectedness increases their access to healthcare, potentially retail opportunities, which is very important in rural areas, and increases the ability, for example, to work from home or conduct business from home, so that it helps the environment. I think that you are going to see and are seeing now an increased emphasis on broadband connectedness or digital connectedness for people, especially in rural areas, whereas perhaps the focus has been on road and rail. For some people, having the right road to where they are or the right railway service will be less important than having that digital connectivity. In the Scottish Government and the infrastructure, what we are trying to do is recognise that and try to make as much progress as we can. We are seeing new developments in terms of the hardest to reach areas and the use of satellite broadband and things like that to try to increase that. We are trying to work in a joined-up way in relation to that. I am pleased that you have obviously got that in a priority area. I am hoping that perhaps if there is any money left somewhere else, that can go and support that view that you have. Thank you for that. The second point that I wanted to raise was in terms of youth employment initiatives. I only yesterday found out that some colleges are not as eager to promote that training as they could be. I will be writing to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, but I will also keep you in the loop as well because part of your portfolio is in terms of work to employment and ensuring that we have decent employment. I just wanted to flag that up today to you as just a point of information and perhaps we can readdress this at a later stage. I think that it is important that colleges play an important role. I think that colleges can play a very important role in that. It is important that they seem to be doing it. If part of the member's point is that some of the colleges are not maximising the opportunities that might be from European funding, that would be something for me to be interested in. Although you are right to say that the primary responsibility lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, there is support within European programmes for one area where we know we have a lot to do, which is digital skills, to go back to your previous question. There is a gap there. Interestingly, I have made the point in this very room at a previous reception that perhaps employers should take more cognisance of the number of veterans leaving the armed forces with those skills, even if they are not articulated or expressed in the same way as civilian skills, so they can be the same skills. However, if what the member is saying is that he is aware of circumstances where colleges or the FE sector are not maximising the opportunities from European funding, I would be very interested in hearing that. What Campbell? Rural Scotland, particularly outside the Highlands and Islands, are they getting a fair crack of the wick from structural funds? I suppose that there are two ways to look back and see the extent to which the rural sector did well in the last set of structural funds. I also look forward to seeing how well we are providing for putting the basis in place for the next six years for rural areas. Even in terms of public perception, among the agencies that are involved, the rural side of things has always had a very high profile. I know that there are concerns and some of those are dealt with by my colleague Richard Lochhead. There has been a very high profile for those. Of course, it is not all strictly rural, but much of the agricultural support and fisheries support has an impact on rural communities as well. All local authorities do get support in relation to that, especially where they represent rural areas. It is probably true to say that, as of other sectors, we have done a great deal, but there is more that we can do. I would be interested if the member has got any particular examples of where he feels that we could do better in relation to rural provision. I think that one of the issues that has often raised is the bureaucracy of the leader programme. I do not know whether that will be any easier. Do you have any comments on that one? I might get a change to come in in the specifics, but I have certainly had that representation made to me last year in the west of Scotland in a rural area, and the point was made quite forcibly to me. It can be very difficult for very small, sometimes tenant farmers and others to go through all the compliance that is required. I think that, from what I have said earlier on, we are very alive to the idea of trying to reduce the burden, the audit burden. It is worth saying that that is going against the grain of what Europe is doing. Europe and the commission is quite rightly coming under a lot of scrutiny. It does not get accounts approved, and it has real challenges in some of the new Eastern European countries where the capacity is not the same as it is in the countries that will be members of the EU for quite some time to deal with the infrastructure there. The EU or the commission is increasing the audit function or compliance regime in those countries, and we are being caught with that. So what we are trying to do is to mitigate that as best we can. Sometimes it will come down and impact on very small organisations, but I do not know if you want to say something about the leader. Leaders were obviously challenging in the last programme and it supported from the European Rural Development programme rather than the ERDF and ESF programmes, but one of the other significant changes in the new regime's minister's agreement is that we govern the rural marine structural funds programmes as one, and that we seek alignment between those programmes. There is dialogue about what leader will do and what the structural funds programmes will do so that there is not confusion or overlap or competition at a local level into two funds for the same thing, which would cause difficulty. Some of those bureaucratic issues hopefully will be lessened in localities in relation to leader because of the governance arrangements and the alignment between the programmes. It is a slightly different question in terms of the youth employment initiative in South West Scotland. What are the expectations of this project and how we are going to measure success or otherwise with it? Well, that is the technical measure result of my bill. It is a shame coming in that, but obviously you look over time. Although we have managed to attract substantial funding for the south west, our record in terms of youth unemployment is exceptionally improved from last year, so we have got the lowest youth unemployment in the UK now. There has been a lot of work done, not least is, and as I have mentioned, I have learned through education initiatives. I do not know if you want to talk about the technical measures. That is an interesting question. If it goes to the heart of the whole commission approach to all the programmes where they are much more target-oriented, outcomes-driven, payment-on-results and so on, and in terms of the youth unemployment initiative, because it is a shorter programme, front-loaded to be committed by the end of 15 and so on, not supposed to run to 2020. The targets, I think for that, are relatively simple. It is young people into work, young people up to 29. I cannot quote you exactly the targets, but they will be of that order very specific clear-cut targets. We will get back to you. It has changed quite substantially, as has female employment over the last number of months, where there has been some real progress made, so how the targets remain relevant is an interesting question. We will provide the information both on the targets that we expect to achieve and the way that things have changed over the past year because of the progress that has been made to the committees. Is the whole convener or to the member to provide it to herself? To the committee to help with our deliberations. You have completed your questions. I have a quick final supplementary from Lily Coffey. Thank you very much, convener. Just to follow up on the questions that Anzala Malik raised there on the broadband Cabinet Secretary, we understood that mobile roaming charges were meant to have been eliminated by this December throughout the European Union. That was a fantastic move, I think, that would have supported the principles behind the digital single market. We also understand that it was not the commission that reversed this commitment, that it was the member state somehow, but there is a bit of lack of clarity on who exactly was responsible for that. Is there anything that the Scottish Government can do to find out how those circumstances came about and hopefully to lobby for that to be reinstated with a clear timetable for that to happen? If the European Union is promoting the principles within the digital single market, that seems to me to be a key aim that would be in there to support that initiative. It seems as though they have reversed on quite an important commitment. Yes, we can do that. I will find out exactly what the circumstances who was responsible for it and when it is expected to be completed. I should say that a lot of change has taken place already. I think that my own experience was in Milan on Monday. You get the usual message when you get there and what the cost of the calls and texts were. It was substantially reduced from what I remember in recent years, but we will find that out right back to the committee with how it came about, who is responsible for implementing it and when it will be completed. I am happy to do that. We have obviously got some time constraints this morning, so we do have some additional questions for you if we can write to you on that. That would be very helpful, but specifically, if we can highlight the issue around the youth employment issue, some information that we have is that the youth guarantee has been criticised under a question mark within the European context Europe-wide, so some detail on that specific targets, whether they have met the targets and how many jobs, would be helpful to inform the committee on the work that it takes forward. Youth employment, broadband and a few other things are the main topics for the committee. They are things that we keep a close eye on, so anything that you can help us to inform that process would be very gratefully received and dated. I thank you very much on behalf of the committee for coming along and answering my questions. I will briefly suspend for five minutes to sell out people to get a quick comfort break. Good morning, and welcome back to the European and External Relations Committee. Our agenda item 3 this morning is consideration of a report from the Scottish Parliament's members of the committee of the regions. Stuart Maxwell sends his apologies for not being able to be at committee this morning to present his report because he is a member of the devolution committee, which is meeting at the same time as us this morning. You have a paper in your papers that is there for comment, clarification or question. I am grateful to our colleague, Stuart Maxwell, for providing that report. I notice that he informs us that one of the committees is going to begin an inquiry into the digital single market. I am certainly very keen to keep close touch with that, to see what the scope of that inquiry might be and whether the committee has got any possibility for our committee to feed on that in terms of asking them to consider protecting our matters. Okay, we can ask that, yeah. Yeah, you agree with that, Hanzella? Is there any other questions or comments? Rod. The 110th plunary session, there was obviously a statement from Cecilia Malstrom about T Tipper and that seemed to slightly fade it away. I did not know if we could actually inquire in a kind of what involvement the committee of the regions are having with the T Tipper debate. We can ask that as well, absolutely. Adam? Just one of a relatively new member of the committee, I assume that the members of the committee of the regions that the parliamentarians that we have would normally come along and have a wee chat with the committee about what's going on. That would be correct, because I think it would be helpful if we did have that. There was no formal mechanism for the committee of the regions to communicate with this committee, so this particular committee set up this process and that's why we now get the six to six monthly report, isn't it? That's why we now get the six-month report, because as you can see, they pack so much into the work that they do, and some of it is very, very topical, and some of it is very important in the on-going work that we do as well, but this is quite a new phenomenon, so we've been developing it as we go along, but yes, we usually come along to committee, and that's why we have apologies from our colleague this morning. Patricia Ferguson came in the last time and delivered her report, didn't she? No, but she has similar situation with the committee. She's got a similar situation with being on another committee, so that makes it difficult, but as you can see, it's a very comprehensive report. I hope that they're happy to answer any questions. I think it would be useful if we can get a mutually agreed time for the members to come along and just have a general discussion with them without being terribly onerous on them, but just an exchange of views would be helpful. Can look at that for the new session starting in September, absolutely. Did we not actually agree to ask Patricia to come and give us a verbal report as well, even though she couldn't make it on that particular day? We didn't suggest that maybe she could come back and give us a report. It's the take turns to do what does at one six-month cycle and what does at the other. Is there an verbal report or is this wondering? No, but that's what Adam's asking for, so we'll try to set that up for the session starting again in September. I'm happy to have this circulated to relevant subject committees. It's a bit alert on the rural affairs and climate change committee and some of the very particular issues that have come up in the report. Happy to do that. Excellent, thank you very much indeed. We are moving on to agenda item four, which is our reports from the Scottish Government and that is another pretty substantial paper in your papers. We have horizon 2020 for language learning and our usual update on transposition of EU directives. Again, any questions, comments, clarifications? I'm not sure how well you're doing in the language scheme. How many more schools have joined, if any? I was trying to get a practical hold on if we have increased our language bank and also if other schools have joined in or not. Also, we were going to try and monitor the high schools and secondary schools, so once the children who have graduated from primary have moved on to secondary whether those languages are available to them so that they complement what they've already previously learned, I don't think we have that detailed information. Perhaps you can get that at some stage. There is an implementation process paper at the back of that, but there is a section in the letter that says, since by previous update, implementation of one plus two policies gathered base, and it's that pace and the content of that pace that we need to know. My experience so far in being involved in a lot of the cross-party working groups on the one and two language policy is not working very well at all, but I think that Dr Alasdair Allan has highlighted that Michael Russell, MSP, has agreed to sponsor a parliamentary reception on Thursday 24th. That will be hugely important for some of our cross-party working groups to be involved in alongside our MSPs, but it does concern me, convener, that we aren't punching up our weight. We need some of the detail, don't we? The same point that I see on page 4, it does say that local authorities have been asked to provide a strategic update to help build a picture of how provision is developing in Scottish schools since the strategies were submitted in 2014. It might be an idea to request the Scottish Government when those are in a specific period to give us as a committee an update, but there are some positives in terms of this report, the vast increase in the number of language assistants seems to be a positive. The feedback that we had for the British Council a few weeks ago was that they had managed to push that number up as well, but I think that there are a number of positives in here, but there are some things that we need some clarification on and how well it is doing, so I am happy to do that. I will come back on one little point that I want to ask on that language. It was just that they said that the interest in the LA programme continues to grow provisional numbers for the coming academic year, an increase of 100 per cent. I was wondering if we could just possibly get the actual figure, because 100 per cent, from one to two, is 100 per cent, if you know what I mean. We have visited many more projects than just one, so I think that that is part of the detail that I should ask for. Moving on now to agenda item five, which is a paper that we have on the Transatlantic Trades Investment Partnership. It is a letter that we have from Cecilia Marstrom with an update and a response to our committee inquiry. For your information, SPICE will do an updated research paper for us, published in September, to allow us— Oh, for when we get back on the 3rd of September, so it means that we can have an update on what has happened over the intervening months since our committee inquiry has been completed and, since the letter from Cecilia Marstrom, we have yet to receive a response from the UK Government on our committee inquiry paper, so I may be looking for committee support to write again to the UK Government to ask them for that update. We have had one now from the EU, so one from the UK would be very helpful. I think that I lodged a question in relation to any discussions that might be taking place about Cecilia Marstrom's possible discussions with representatives of the Scottish Government. I am not sure—I do not believe that I have received an answer to that question yet, but I can share that with committee members when it is received. I am thinking in terms of going on. Obviously, it is going to be very grateful to have that SPICE update in September, because we know that the Trade Committee in Europe will be meeting on 29 June to consider whether or not, in excess of 100 amendments, which were to be considered by the full European Parliament earlier this month, will now be discussed in September or whether or not some other arrangement will come to be. That is a postponement from the meeting a few weeks ago. The Trade Committee is on its meeting on 29 June. I think it would be helpful to—obviously, our European representatives are at the cutting edge of this—if we could perhaps put into our work programme the possibility of a session by video link or otherwise with members of the European Parliament to discuss where we are with TTIP at a convenient time early in the autumn. That would be very valuable indeed. I am not sure whether that has already been covered, but there has been an offer to meet with the cabinet secretary, John Swinney. Has that date been set? That was the point of my question. I was trying to focus on what is the current position at, and I have put a parliamentary question in which she has yet unanswered. After that, would there be an opportunity if she was coming to meet with Mr Swinney that she would meet the committee? We can only ask. Given that she has been very good at communicating back with the committee, I would hope that if she was here in Scotland, that would be a good opportunity to come and meet with the committee, whether formally or informally we would need to decide that. To go on the back of my colleague Roger Campbell's suggestion, it would be a superb idea for us as a committee to be involved with our MEPs, whether that is video link or face-to-face. The group of us that are going out to Strasbourg has managed to secure a sit-down with the MEPs out there, and there is plenty of recession. I think that maybe at that time in October there might be a bit of a focus on some of this that has happened at the time. It is all very good ideas. Adam? On the point in the letter that she said, she is delighted to consider arranging a visit to Scotland, and I wondered if she had any further communication with her office on that, to meet her. I think that we should offer the accommodation here. Thanks, convener. I just refer members to one of the sentences that Mrs Malstrom has provided for us in her letter. She says, for the benefit of the members, that she made a joint declaration with her U.S. counterpart confirming that TTIP will neither require the European Union or U.S. Governments to privatise any service. That is not quite the same as we have no intention of doing so. Not requiring that does not mean that you ultimately will not do it, and that is where the concern for a lot of the public still lies. It is not abundantly clear that they have got no intention of doing so. Maybe it is a semantics thing here with this particular letter, but I would hope that we could further tease that out if Mrs Malstrom actually comes to the committee. We can have a look at that and clarify it. Within the context of that, the next sentence is about not being able to comment on whether there is a need for the UK Government to offer any additional protections, and that is where the issue arise for us here in this Parliament, is that does the UK Government have to ask for that reservation on behalf of Scotland, or is it just done within our intergovernmental communications within the UK? That is what is not clear for me, unless the UK specifically asks for that reservation. Does that leave us open to some of the requirements or non-requirements of any policy paper or policy intention? That is the key question for me here. We can ask all of those questions and invite the commissioner here to Scotland. I hope that we can have a much more in-depth discussion on all of those issues. I am happy to do that. On that topic, setting up an MEP meeting is early in the session after summer is possible. Further questions and clarifications are sought of the commissioner Malstrom and an invitation to attend this committee. Does that cover everybody's asks in that respect? I am sorry to the UK minister as well. Chasing up the UK on the response to our committee inquiry report. That takes us to agenda item 6, which is the Brussels bulletin. Thanks very much, convener. A slight change of tack for me with the Brussels bulletin on page 3. There is quite an important item on the dairy issue, particularly on milk prices. I know that this is an issue that affects not just Scottish milk producers but right throughout Europe. There is absolutely no stability in pricing for milk, particularly in Scotland, and it is potentially and seriously damaging and threatening the industry. The paper there talks about the concerns about it of course and that there is some kind of basket of tools available to try to influence this and bring about a wee bit of stability for our farmers and milk producers. I would be keen to find out just exactly what those tools are and what the intention behind deploying those tools might be to see whether they might assist Scottish farmers and milk producers to get a fair price for their milk and some kind of consistent and stable price that lasts for a period of time and does not go up and down like a yo-yo as it does at the moment. I believe that the rural committee of this Parliament has just started to undertake an inquiry into milk prices in the dairy sector, so maybe keeping in close contact with their colleagues in that committee is a way to address us. Jamie? I was just going to make that point that some of my constituents in the Quintar area, the Camelton area, have been getting 13 to 16 pence for their milk when it is costing them 24 pence to produce it. Most of them are customers of first milk. It is a real crisis, it really is a crisis. I hope that this will do something quite quickly, something needs to be done quickly. We should maybe look at the criteria set by the rural committee for their inquiry and see what that involves. One of the committees that I am on is the Public Petitions Committee. There was a case by a farmer who felt that their human rights were infringed when the pricing was set in the first place. I just want to lay down that aspect of things. We need to be careful how we actually address this, so there are no losers. I think that is the important issue. Whilst the rural committee is looking at this, I think we might want to share that with them, so that in the deliberations they try to ensure that we do not end up with people who are on the losing end. The idea is to try and make sure that there is a win-win for all of us and most importantly to protect the industry. I think we just advise them of that fact. They may already know, but in case they do not, I think it is nice to just let them know. We should make sure that this section of the Brussels bulletin is highlighted to that committee with their comments. I was quite interested by the NGA bird life study. Also, by requesting the commission to start working on a targeted and affected biodiversity conservation policy, but I just wanted to flag up if we could follow through any response from the commission to that. Can I draw your attention to the section at the back of the Brussels bulletin, which is actually a spice paper on something that was raised by a number of MSPs in this Parliament to this committee? It is the anti-money laundering legislation. There is quite a detailed paper here, and I know that the chief executive of the Parliament has been doing some work on this and what it means for us all, and maybe some overzealous banks getting a bit ahead of themselves on some of the aspects of this. As a very detailed paper, it gives us an update on the fourth anti-money laundering director, which was only adopted a few weeks ago. My inclination is to ensure that the chief executive of this Parliament gets a copy of this, and maybe it is then distributed directly to all MSPs to ensure that they understand what politically exposed persons actually mean and the impact that it will have on their day-to-day financial transactions and things. Is that agreed? Can I also add, as a cautionary note, that perhaps we can do something in terms of public awareness? I was seeing a television programme where a youngster was stopped from leaving the UK because he had a large sum of money that he couldn't produce evidence for there and then where the money came from. I think that it's all about having prior knowledge so that they can ensure that they do have the evidence after taking large sums of cash for business or leisure. I think that we need to disseminate that information to the general public as well. I think that that's important. I hope that the individual members will help with that as well. Members of this Parliament are fully aware that I've got personal experience from some time ago of this issue. I'm sure that plenty of members are not aware of it at all. You're not alone. Many members have contacted me and my capacity is convener on this issue. That's why we commissioned SPICE to do this bit of information. I know that the chief executive in the corporate body is working very hard to ensure that people get the right information. It's a very important piece. A great example of how something that comes from Europe has an impact on us and we don't realise it until it's right on us. Hence, horizon scan is always a good thing. It's a good paper and a thanks to SPICE for putting it together as quickly as they have. We should just keep an eye on it. Thank you very much. That completes our business in public today. I'm going to suspend now to go into private and thank everyone for coming along.