Rhaid i ddiliau. Y 19 ystafell yw'r Eisteddfod 2014 yw'r Un i Ysg raining i Llanffahelau. Felly mae hwnnw i ddyfi colour gwahanol lleon hwnnw i ddeni, ac mae'n schiar hefyd agafi ni'n gwneud hynny. Mae holleg ar y cysylltu'r Cymru, iloedd Canzala Malik, rwyf yr marglu diwrnod. OK, ddau'r cyfwyr maen nhwy i'r wneud, Carelay, does not believe you have been to committee before, so, do you have any interests that you could declare on relation to this committee? No convener, I do not have any interests that are relevant. Thank you very much and welcome to committee. Agenda item 1 is our evidence session today with the Scottish Government's ministers for European and international development . Hamza Usinouf, welcome back to committee this morning. Maen nhw'n ystod i'r cyflau ac yn cael ei wneud aeth gwrsiau gwaith cysylltion ymlaen ar ddod yng nghymledd Menchyn Ieulol? Foe'n gwaelant ar y gael ddwyngoedd a'r ddweud a'r ddod atoedwog yn ei chwarae. Rwy'n gael i ei wneud ar hyn oedd eich oedd sut i'n gwrsiau a'r ddod i eich oedd a'r ddwyd i'n ei wneud.  Byddwn ei ddim yn ffociff am gwaeddaeth o gyfer ei gyd agin nhw i ddod i willy i eu gyrfaith yna, â'r ddiwrnod i phrodd. As published by the Luxembourg presidency, I hope that the committee found it useful and, of course, I'm happy to elaborate on any aspects of that correspondence if you find that useful. Turning to the second half of 2015, I'd like to say something about the Scottish Government's EU priorities during the current period of Luxembourg's presidency of the European Union. I'll begin with what is undoubtedly the major issue of the moment facing Europe, that of the refugee crisis and the need for community agreement on a package of measures that offer solutions that will endure. The European Commission President, Jean-Cord Juncker, said during his State of the Union address to the European Parliament last week, and I quote, that now is not the time for Europe to take fright at the scale of the challenge, but time for bold, determined and concerted action by the European Union, by its institutions and by all its member states. It is a matter of humanity and human dignity. These are sentiments, convener, that the Scottish Government echoes. We have repeatedly made clear that Scotland stands ready to play its part and take its fair share of refugees to help some of the most vulnerable people in need. The First Minister announced the refugee task force, which has now met twice, and has considered the immediate practical actions that we can take to help. The Parliament debated these issues only two days ago, with members of this committee making very passionate speeches in that debate. In the first instance, we are working with local authorities across Scotland to identify capacity to accommodate refugees and what services they will need to put in place to support families to start a new life and safety in Scotland and to ensure the appropriate integration takes place. It is very encouraging to hear that the majority of local authorities have indicated a willingness to accommodate refugees. We will now build on this positive and overwhelming response and ensure that appropriate support and integration services are put in place. We have been overwhelmed by the support. I think that all of us have been overwhelmed in our own constituencies and across the country. The support for refugees throughout social media and other means in the Scottish Government along with our partners at the Scottish Refugee Council launched a website as a central online hub to help to co-ordinate the efforts and the kind offers that have come in from the public. The website is www.scotlandwelcomerefugees.scot. Following the emergency EU justice and home affairs council meeting on Monday, this Monday 14 September, the Scottish Government now hopes that member states can find a consensus to allow the EU to deliver a comprehensive package that is required for refugee resettlement and relocation. A further emergency meeting will take place on 22 September. That will also be discussed by leaders at European council level. Scottish ministers have and will continue to press the UK Government to ensure Scotland's views are reflected in the UK's position and we would continue to urge the UK to opt in to the various European schemes. Secondly, I would like to say something about the forthcoming renegotiation process and the UK referendum on membership of the EU, which will take place. We know by the end of 2017, though not as we now know on the same day as the May 2016 elections to the Scottish Parliament or indeed the May 2017 local elections. We understand that, following the Prime Minister's introduction of the UK Government's renegotiation at the European Council in June, technical talks have now commenced between the UK Government and EU institutions. Their progress is due to be considered at the December European Council, which will take place during the Luxembourg presidency. In the meantime, the Prime Minister will continue to meet member states having visited Madrid and Lisbon earlier this month. It is vital that Scotland's voice is heard in that process. The Scottish Government must be kept informed of these discussions and our interests must be represented. That must include genuine opportunities for Scotland to have a clear role in the development of the UK's position to ensure that Scottish ministers are fully involved. It cannot be right, convener, that other member states know more about the UK's possible renegotiation than Scotland. Where there is common ground, we will be constructive. Of course, where there is disagreement, we will argue robustly to protect Scotland's interest. We of course realise that the EU is not perfect. I have never met a member state, an ambassador, a diplomat or a politician who believes that to be the case. That Government believes that the EU should focus more on economic and social policies that make a tangible difference to the lives of its citizens, while allowing member states more autonomy to address specific domestic issues, particularly those with a health and social impact. Progress towards those goals can be made within the framework of the existing EU treaties. A protracted process of treaty change is neither desirable nor realistic within the referendum timeframe. In relation to the referendum itself, the Scottish Government is committed to protecting Scotland's EU membership. We will continue to argue for the double majority principle that it should apply to this referendum, and it cannot be right that if Scotland votes in favour of remaining in the EU, it can still be dragged out of the EU against it as well. To conclude, convener, the Scottish Government supports the Luxembourg presidency and the rest of the EU's efforts to see sustainable and inclusive growth take hold again in Europe. In terms of unemployment, it is far too high, particularly among those who are under 25. We need it to fall from its unacceptable levels. For investment to drive economic recovery, we will be pushing for fiscal stability—that was a Freudian slip, I promise—and for strong and sustainable policies to support key sectors. We will therefore continue to pursue our work in those key areas, such as digital economy, the environment, energy, agriculture and fisheries, research and innovation and justice, as well as continuing to promote the best of Scotland, particularly in this year of food and drink through our cultural diplomacy, both at home and in Brussels and across the EU. I thank the committee for the opportunity to come here and look forward to answering your questions. Thank you very much, minister, for a very detailed and concise contribution. One of the things that you mentioned, you touched on briefly, was the work of the refugee task force. I am sure that all of us would—it is a moving feast every day, I understand that. One of the things that I raised in my speech the other day was about the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. The issue within that is about children's rights, not having the right to be reunited with our family. Will the minister have any avenues through GMC or other avenues to take that forward? Let me put on record, first of all, the incredible efforts of members of the Scottish Parliament. Many members across the Scottish Parliament, some who are still elected and many who are no longer with us in this Parliament, have always shown Scotland an incredibly passionate and compassionate light throughout the years when it comes to refugee question. I think that Scotland has a phenomenal reputation amongst the UN and international players on how it has responded in the past to the most vulnerable in the world. That is not just the sole credit of the current Scottish Government by any stretch of the imagination. It is previous Governments, Executives and Administrations and also MSPs in the past. In terms of the task force, convener, you are absolutely correct in your description. It is a moving feast, not even day by day, hour by hour. The refugee crisis is taking a twist and a turn in a different direction and often in a very negative way as opposed to a positive way. In terms of the task force, I have to say that one of the advantages of being a country of our size is that we have been able to bring people round the table very quickly. I thank all the stakeholders, all the NGOs and particularly the local authorities and many others who have managed to come round the table in a speedy way and that shows the determination to take this issue forward. The task force has a few immediate priorities, convener. One is to find suitable accommodation for the immediate 1,000 that we have said we are ready to take. Of course, as I reiterate in the debate, Scotland will take more and will take up a portion at share of refugees, but the immediate concern must be to find suitable accommodation. I use that phrase deliberately, convener, because in the past, in Scotland, we have not always got it right in terms of accommodation. We have put people into accommodation that nobody else wanted, which we have seen as substandard. We have put refugees in areas of high and multiple deprivation, only in those areas where we have to ask other local authorities who do not have low and multiple deprivation to play their part. So, suitable accommodation is the first aspect. We have made good progress on that, convener. The second thing is making sure that the wraparound services of integration are there for refugees, not from the day they arrive, but actually pre-arrival. Those things have to be in place before people arrive, particularly working with those local communities where refugees will be housed. I will continue to endeavour to keep this committee updated on the work of the task force. We do meet on a weekly basis. There are now two subgroups, one on housing and one on refugee integration. They will also meet on a regular basis. We also have, probably on a flight and transit, one of the members of the task force, Amala Zodin Pinar and Margaret Wood from the Glasgow campaign to welcome refugees. They are on their way to the island of Lesfos, as we speak, so they will also be joining us from there and giving us an update on how the refugee crisis is panning out. That is the element of the task force. In terms of your second point, I think that it is very well made. I will certainly raise it either in my next meeting with the UK Government and I am hoping to secure a meeting with the minister for refugees who has just been appointed by the UK Government. Once I get confirmation of that meeting, I will raise that with the minister for refugees. Family reunification is a huge issue. In fact, a number of refugees could be brought into this country if the family reunification rules were changed and the UK Government changed those family reunification rules. To me, it seems utterly bizarre that those who are recognised as refugees here have been given status of fleeing from war-torn Syria and still have to jump through hoops and hoops of fire to prove and to be reunited with their family. That just cannot be right. When that involves children, that is even more disturbing. I think that your points are well made. I will certainly raise them with the UK Government and take an action point to raise them with the UK Government the next time I speak to them, particularly if I can meet with the minister for refugees. Thank you very much. We will look forward to that. My question is not about refugees. Before I ask it, I think that I should declare an interest and refer members to my agricultural interests in the member's register. The Scottish Government's EU action plan states that the Government will continue to work with other devolved Administrations and the UK Government to ensure Scotland interests are represented at EU level. The CAP is 40 per cent of the European budget. Recently and particularly today on Radio Scotland this morning, I heard crofters and farming interests from the north west of Scotland complaining that, compared to the Welsh equivalent farmers, those with grade 3 land only get £7 per hectare subsidy whereas the Welsh are getting £88 per subsidy. When you work with the devolved Administrations, do you have conversations with the Welsh and will you try and get to the bottom of this? I think that the member now understands and put on record his interest in this, certainly for the years that I have been in this Parliament. We work very closely with the devolved Administrations. The forum that was mentioned by the convener earlier on, the GMCE, we tend to meet with the devolved Administrations before the GMCE takes place and we have a good and frank discussion on this. What I will say is that we haven't touched upon the specifics that he asks, so I will endeavour to raise that with my devolved counterparts. You may have seen, and if not, I will ensure that we send the member a copy of a pressure that he has put out by the Scottish Government just a couple of days ago from rural affairs and environment minister and cabinet secretary Richard Lockhead. He will know that the issue of farming and agriculture has been a huge issue in Brussels for a variety of different sectors from dairy to livestock, arable farming. He will no doubt have seen even the scenes of some of the protests that took place in Europe. The EU funding package of £500 million that was announced by the Commission earlier this month, the UK's allocation of that is €36.1 million. Richard Lockhead has written to the UK Government to determine what Scotland's share of that will be and to make a case for Scotland's share. I will get to the specifics of the issue that he asked for. I will certainly work with devolved Administrations. We do work with them very closely, but perhaps I can give the member an update. I can also find out from my colleague Richard Lockhead what conversations he has had with his Welsh counterpart. I refer this because there is a very real worry about depopulation of certain areas of the north-west of Scotland. The fall in the euro has also added to the woes of those receiving subsidies that are paid in euros. I would be very grateful if you would look into this. My next question is also related to food products. I was wondering if we could have an update from the minister on the UK Government about your talks on the tea-tip negotiations. In regard to CETA, the deal with Canadians, there was something raised the other day about some Scottish products and some British products, food products that may be under threat. Such as Arbro Smokey's, Scottish Farmsham and Stornoway Black Pudding, the Cornish Pastry and Cumberland Sausages, which are obviously not Scottish, but the other ones are. Can you give us any reassurance as to the protection status of these iconic Scottish food products? Yes. I hope that we can give you reassurance on that. Progress, first of all, on CETA and its progressing well. I have seen the press reports and we were deeply concerned at them. From our conversations with EU officials, I think that protected names will remain as they stand within the EU. That is the reassurances that we have had official level. That is notwithstanding. The cabinet secretary, Richard Lochhead, has written to his UK counterpart to get a response, to get reassurances. Once he receives those reassurances, which I am sure he will, we will pass that letter on to the committee and to the member. We will share the concern. From official discussion, it seems that protected names will remain as they are, so there is no disturbance to that. To have that confirmed in black and white, I understand, is important. Therefore, the cabinet secretary has written. On progress on TTIP, the member will understand that, because of the refugee crisis, other issues have tended to not move at the pace that we would have wished. Our concerns remain the same. I met the Minister of State for Trade and Investment, Lord Francis Maud, a couple of days ago. I had a very good conversation with him about how we can work closer on trade investment. TTIP was mentioned, and I once again put on record our concerns around TTIP, particularly for public services, and in particular the NHS, also telling that we are not convinced about ISDS. The member may have seen that the EU made a statement about ISDS and how they see it progressing forward. I will need to look at the detail of that. The press conference took place a couple of days ago. TTIP is progressing. We will continue to raise what we think are legitimate concerns of the Scottish people. There is, of course, potential benefit for TTIP, but our economic modelling shows that it is modest, and it certainly would not outweigh some of the concerns that we have around the NHS, public services and ISDS. In terms of his first question, I will ensure that, once a response is received from Richard Lochhead's letter, that is presented to him and the TTIP. I want to touch a wee bit more on the TTIP question. Obviously, the European Commission's further proposals in terms of what they now call, I think, an investor court system, rather than ISDS. Do I have a question? You remain sceptical about that, but you will be looking more closely at those proposals. The European Commission's further proposals in terms of what they now call an investor court system, rather than ISDS. Do I take it from what you are saying that you remain sceptical about that, but you will be looking more closely at those proposals? The investor court proposal is a step in between before it has to go through an ISDS mechanism, but an ISDS mechanism could still be a last resort. Therefore, we are still not convinced about the need for ISDS. Although it is present in other agreements for this particular agreement, we have to take each agreement on its merit, on a case-by-case basis. As you have summarised it, the position remains sceptical, but at the same time people look at the detail is absolutely correct. For advanced democracies who have very secure and safe legal systems and arbitration systems, there is a question of whether or not it is needed, and I think that that has not quite been addressed. However, the investor court proposal is an interesting one, but it still does not remove ISDS from the equation. Does the Scottish Government have a plan as to when it might carry out more work in terms of economic modelling to assess the impact on TTIP? It is a good question. I asked the UK Government for their economic modelling, because in my discussions with Lord Modd, he disagreed slightly with the presumption that it would be only a modest benefit for business, so I was happy to have a discussion with him. However, I asked him for the economic modelling that the UK Government is projecting. We will have a look at what the UK Government and its economic modelling will continue to do. It will continue to work with businesses here. It is difficult to do with a draft agreement without all the specifics, but I am happy to share whatever information we have on the economic models. We can share that with whatever we are able to share, and it is appropriate to share. Of course, we will do that with the committee. There are two areas that I want to ask about. The first is the upcoming EU referendum. I think that everyone who is in the broad coalition that is supporting a yes campaign is talking about reform and the need for change within the EU. We are all in the position where we have a Conservative Government who are controlling this situation. There are a couple of assurances that I am looking for for the Government. If the Prime Minister comes back with a package of measures that the Scottish Government is unhappy with, will that change in any way their commitment to a yes campaign? I have concerns that it is a danger that if we involve Scottish constitutional politics within the EU referendum, there is a risk that it will weaken the effectiveness of a yes campaign. Are the Government looking to create a broad coalition and work with other partners in presenting the case? On her specific question, the first question that she asked—no, our stance won't change. Our stance of being pro-European does not rely on what the Prime Minister does or does not renegotiate at European Council and with other member states. It is irrelevant to that. We will push for Scotland's interests to be represented in the areas that the First Minister mentioned in her speech in Brussels a couple of months ago. We will continue to push for more autonomy for member states on social and health issues. We will continue to push for Europe to focus less on more regulation, better regulation and working on digital single markets, international co-operation and so on and so forth. We will continue to push to the Prime Minister on those issues. During his renegotiation, if there is any weakening of the social rights that Europe affords, we will be robust against those. That is how we will approach that. Regardless of whatever the UK Government comes back with in the Prime Minister specifically, we will still campaign to remain within Europe. What is important on that is that we have mechanisms to feed in. As I was saying, the Prime Minister is travelling across capitals across Europe, and it does not seem right to me. I think that it would not seem right to many people. There are people in Madrid, in Lisbon, in Berlin and other countries and cities across the world who know more about what the Prime Minister's plans are than we do. We need to have a dialogue to be able to feed information in two ways to the UK Government. In terms of our point on constitutional politics, this is one that I suspect her and myself will not have agreement in that I think the two are completely interlinked. I cannot see how it can be right for Scotland to vote democratically. It does not matter whether you voted yes or no in the previous referendum on Scottish independence, but if people choose to vote to remain within the European Union and the rest of the UK votes to leave, then how that can be a situation. That is right. The Scottish Government has always said that another referendum will only happen when the people on Scottish independence will only happen when the people demand it and dictate it. If there is no outcry from the people for another referendum, there will be no referendum. It will be for the people to decide when that is. I suggest to the member that she also looks at this article in the Herald today on a survey done by the FSB, a foundation of small businesses across the United Kingdom. It will show you that in Scotland businesses are pro-Europe by quite a margin, almost 60 per cent, whereas businesses in the rest of the UK, 45 per cent, are support or their or their votes. Those are worrying and concerning attitudes. We will continue to make the positive case. We will join with anybody in the latter point of our question about a yes campaign. I think that we have not determined exactly how that yes campaign will look. We certainly will not be sharing platforms, I can tell you, with the Conservatives. We do not feel like we need to do that. On any other partners, on any other sectors across Scotland, we will make that positive case. I think that in Scotland generally the signs are good. I just hope that whatever case we make for Europe remains a positive one. I do not think that we have to go down the language of trying to scare people into voting for the European Union. I think that if we keep it positive, we will get the result that we need. The example of businesses is quite a good illustration of the point that I am attempting to put across. If polling is correct and Scotland has a stronger pro-EU feeling, how do we use that to our advantage to try to gain a yes vote across the whole of the UK? Regardless of double majorities or how that would be resolved if the UK, as a majority, where the vote in Glasgow is worth the same as a vote in Manchester, votes to leave the EU? That is extremely problematic for Scotland. That is not an outcome that I want to see. I am sure that it is in all of our best interests to make sure that we have a yes vote. How can we use the seemingly pro-European stance in Scotland, not to use it in Scotland to be different from the rest of the UK, but to use it as how can we encourage the Scottish campaign to get involved more in a UK campaign, whether it is the FSB in Scotland working more with our national partners? I think that it is a fair point that the members attempted to make. I refer her to her colleague, the Welsh First Minister, Carbon Jones, who said that it cannot be right that any part of the UK is taken out of the European Union against its will. He made that statement. It is recognised from the Welsh First Minister as much as it is recognised from the Scottish First Minister that it cannot be unacceptable. I think that she said that it would be unacceptable if that was the case, and it is worth putting on record. I do not think that anyone has secreted on that, so far, but it is recognised as problematic. In terms of the latter part of her question, the organisations that will be campaigning across the UK to remain within the European Union, I know with having discussions with them that they are already in discussions with their Scottish counterparts across a variety of sectors. For example, farming, agriculture, fisheries, business, research and innovation, trade unions—they are already in discussions to ensure that they are having a co-ordinated approach. Where the Government fits into that, I would say to you that my belief is that this has to be a very organic campaign to remain within the European Union. I think that it will not be aided by politicians being at the front and centre of it. I think that, particularly if it is seen as the interests of middle-aged men in suits, be they from the CBI or the chancellor or anybody else, that would not portray a very healthy image for the campaign. I think that we need to promote more diversity in the campaign. I think that it needs to be grass-roots led in terms of the campaign and I think that that is the way for it to be done. There will be co-ordination, I have no doubt, between those sectors. I think that each of the political parties, I imagine, too, will have their own campaigns and they will be strong and they will be robust, of course, if they are able to all agree a position. I know that we are short for time. I did want to ask about the European Social Fund. Is that possible? Just very quickly. Minister is aware of the issue of the European Social Fund. If we could outline what the financial impact of this is, why it happened and how the Government plans to resolve the situation. On the European Social Fund, I think that it is important for us to say that no project has been impacted because the Government made the payments and the Government is looking for reimbursement. All that has been delayed is a reimbursement to the Scottish Government. I think that it is important to put on record that no project has been affected. It is also important to put that in context. Almost half of the projects involved in the ESF have been suspended at one time or another, and what can be marginal administration errors. What we have done is written to those projects involved. We have ensured that they correct those auditing errors. Of course, it is important that any public money should be absolutely accounted for. We have now submitted that to the European Union, and we are waiting for a response. I think that we have submitted just at the end of August, so we are waiting for a response on that. We agree with the European Union that auditing of public money should be at the highest possible standard. We have written to those projects involved to ensure that their mechanisms are more robust, but no project has been adversely affected because the reimbursement of those funds comes to the Scottish Government and we have already paid out to those projects. Rodd, you are very quick supplementary. Minister, I will pull in together two threads that we talked about earlier on in terms of the refugee crisis and re-negotiating in a possible referendum. Are you concerned that the way the refugee crisis is being handled at a European level might impact on the referendum campaign? I would say that the UK's approach to this has been unhelpful on how it is portrayed within the European Union. As the member will be aware in the Scottish Government and across the chamber, there has been calls for the UK to opt in to the relocation and resettlement schemes as proposed by President Juncker. They have thus far resisted countries that do not have to opt and some of them have chosen to opt and Ireland being a perfect example of that, going above and beyond what their obligations are. They have been commended at the highest levels of Europe for doing so. The UK Government has chosen not to, and while I welcome the 20,000 refugees that they are taking from neighbouring countries in Syria, we will continue to urge them to take refugees from Europe. We think that it is important. Anything that presents the UK as being unhelpful, obstinate or difficult will not warm the hearts of other member states, and that is a clear consequence. However, I hope that, regardless of trying to separate the issue again, regardless of what happens in your negotiation, the UK just looks at this as a political issue, as a moral issue, and gets involved and opts into the European schemes. I pre-empted some of the questions that I was going to ask to make it clear that the Scottish Government does not see eye to eye with the UK Government in terms of how it is dealing with the refugee crisis, which is the number one issue across Europe right at the moment, not least a humanitarian emergency that we all should be engaged with. In terms of the mandatory quotas that are being suggested by the EU leadership, I take it that the Scottish Government is in favour of that approach as well, which begs the question of what is Scotland's capacity to help in this regard, and I presume that that is being discussed in the task force. The figure that you have mentioned was 1,000, but I presume that that is just a starter for 10, because clearly 1,000 just scratches the surface of the problem. I guess where I'm coming from here is, to what extent can the Scottish Government influence the UK as a member state here in terms of responding to the refugee crisis? To what extent can you influence the UK Government? If you can't, to what extent can you act independently, if at all possible, with European institutions, to deal with this crisis?  Is there not something we can do more immediately to open our doors for the deal with people who are in extremists and who are already here in Europe? That's a number of questions. I'm sorry, minister. No, I'll do my best. I'll do my best to address all of them as concisely as possible. I thank the member for the questions. I mean, I think he hits a number of nails on the figurative head. The European question on how Europe responds to the refugee crisis, relocation and resettlement of refugees, of course, is only a part of the solution. It is tackling the issue at source that the UK Government has often mentioned is, of course, another part of that solution. A third part of the solution that is not often talked about or not nearly enough is that the EU needs to come to some sort of resolution on how to create safe and legal passages for migration and asylum. The only way to claim asylum legally at the moment, if you're in war-torn Syria, is to go to the British Embassy, which, by the way, doesn't exist any more in Syria, but to go to the British Embassy filling out a form and claiming asylum. That is the way to get into Britain. I was debating this with a Conservative MP who suggested that only people who should be prioritising are able to fill out the appropriate forms and form an orderly queue. How do you do that when Assad's forces have ransacked your village or your town? I cannot comprehend that, but that is not just unique to the UK, that is across the European Union, so they need to create safe and legal passages, the first thing that I would add on. In terms of his most substantial points, he's correct as well that this is not an issue that has just started in the last four or five weeks. We have been involved in discussions around Syrian refugees and other refugees since I came into post. I wrote to the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, almost three years ago to say that the UK should accept Syrian refugees at that time. It's only because of pressure—this goes to his secondary point—on the UK Government that they've now come to this figure of 20,000 over five years, which, as he describes it, is scratching the surface. The pressure from the Scottish Government may have played a part, but in all honesty it is the public and the public outcry that has forced the UK Government to change its tack and to respond to this humanitarian crisis. Although, as I said, devolved administrations, Governments and local authorities played their part, I think that the credit for getting the UK Government to change its mind should go to campaigners and should go to the public at large who responded overwhelmingly. Scratching the surface, the 20,000 number and the 1,000 number that we mentioned, let me just say that the 1,000 number is those that we can immediately take, but we will take a proportionate share. When we say proportionate share, we talk around about the 10 per cent mark of whatever the UK Government will take, so if they're taking 20,000 over five years, of course we'll take at least 2,000 or there or thereabouts, but we will push the UK Government to take more. If they opted into the relocation and resettlement schemes, the relocation and resettlement schemes talk about 160,000 people in total across the European Union. They use something called the distribution key. If anybody has ever seen this, it's an algorithm, an equation that would make the mind boggle, but nonetheless distributes, allocates distribution across the European Union. Even if the UK Government was to double the numbers, it was going to take 20,000 to 40,000, even if it was to triple them, which wouldn't be the case under the distribution key. Even if it was to triple them, it would still only be scratching the surface. 160,000 refugees and a 4 million refugee crisis is just scratching the surface, but we must push them and urge them to do whatever they possibly can. What must be dealt with is dealing with the source of the problem, the source of the issue. I was about to call it a civil war in Syria, but it's difficult to call it that. It is brutality by the Government regime.  The very last point that he asked was what influences the Scottish Government has can it act unilaterally? Let me say it definitively without any doubt whatsoever. We cannot act unilaterally. It would give me a pleasure if I could open up Scotland to take more refugees. I wouldn't hesitate, nor would our local authorities hesitate for a second, but that cannot be done. There is no legal route for us to do that. We are represented as things stand by the UK when it comes to EU schemes, when it comes to negotiating with the United Nations, although we have a dialogue with them. We cannot simply send out boats and bring people here. That is not possible for us to do. What we can do is continue to influence the UK Government, continue to put pressure on the UK Government, but it will need the public to continue the pressure. What we can allow is for this issue to just disappear off the front pages of the news, because it will. Another issue will come, and then for those refugees to be forgotten. Through that public pressure, along with the Government's pressure, perhaps the UK Government will act to help those on Europe, as well as helping those in neighbouring Syria. I will give the member to the committee that the Scottish Government will not forget this issue. Even when it goes off the television screens, we will continue to work and pursue the UK Government to take more refugees, not just from Syria and the neighbouring camps, but also from Europe. I thank the minister for that full-thin response. We could spend all morning discussing this, convener. I know that there are other subjects. We have a committee date dedicated to a round table on this specific issue in a few weeks' time, so it allows us to keep it on the front page. I want to continue with the discussion of, if we do not mind, on the refugee crisis. You told us that the UK Government has been brought to the table pretty late to step in and assist here and accept refugees coming to the UK. If the UK had not done that, would Scotland be able to take any refugees? If the UK had not agreed to take any, would we be able to take any? The only way that refugees would have been able to, if the UK hadn't acted in that way, would be through the normal asylum process. Refugees would have to come. They would have to go through the asylum process, which often, as MSPs will have experienced this, can often take years. We are not talking about one or two years, and some people have come to me through the asylum process that has taken them 10 years in that process in Limbo. They would have to go through the asylum process and then be judged whether they are not a refugee. That would be the only way. There is no way that Scotland would be able to take refugees unilaterally. The UK Government controls our borders. It controls immigration. It controls asylum. It controls who is a refugee and who is not a refugee. We have not an inch of control and not an ounce of control over that. Of course, it will not be a surprise that I wish we did, but we do not, so we will have to work within the existing structures that exist. In terms of wider European policy about this, I think that there is a perception amongst the public that Europe was particularly slow to react here, and particularly with the rescue mission, let's call it, in the Mediterranean. When you compare and contrast that experience with the amount of effort that Europe puts into things like the T-tip process that is mentioned by my colleagues, one stands in stark contrast, I think, with the other. Do you think that there is a need for Europe to sharpen up its act here in terms of policy on things like migration and refugee crises to be absolutely clear and to be ready to act, rather than, as the public, I think, perceive, be seen to be slow to act? Yes, I think so. The European Union does not have a choice. It has to act. It must. This refugee crisis is not going anywhere. The Syrian conflict, again now, the Syrian brutality has been going on for four and a half years, and there is no end in sight that I can see in the immediate future. We will continue, of course, to push well leaders to find that diplomatic solution and to find that political solution, but it has been raging on for four and a half years. Even if you took Syria completely out of the equation, you will have plenty of refugees who will come from the effects of climate change, for talking to me. We know that commonwealth has a population of, excuse me, a young population, two-thirds of which under the age of 25. If their countries are abject poverty, which some commonwealth countries or many commonwealth countries are, then it is hardly surprising that it will look for opportunity in more developed parts of the world. Europe would be a prime destination for anybody. People call them economic migrants, but how can you call somebody coming from Afghanistan an economic migrant? What made him or her an economic migrant? The fact that the Russians invaded in the 80s, the fact that we invaded along with a coalition post 2000, that is why their country is in such poverty. You can hardly blame people from Afghanistan or Iraq trying to seek their way out of economic poverty. My point is that Europe has to come to a solution that includes safe passages and legal routes for migration. That is one thing, I would say. I agree with the member's point in terms of the Coast Guard operation as well. Fiona Hyslop, the cabinet secretary for cultural and external affairs, raised this with the UK Government. When Marion Ostrom, the Italian Coast Guard operation, was withdrawn, she said that it would lead to more lives being lost. The rationale for withdrawing that was because it was seen as quote-unquote a pool factor. Of course, they removed it and more people have died trying to cross the Mediterranean than ever before. Anybody who tries to suggest that these things are a pool factor, the evidence suggests otherwise. Although Europe has been slow to respond, I was heartened by what President Juncker had to say. I thought that the solutions that he talked about were positive and courageous, because it will be difficult to get other member states to agree to all the measures that he put forward. I think that although the European Union has responded late, what it is proposing will certainly go a long way in helping in the future. Finally, briefly on rescue itself over the summer months here in July and August, Minister, you mentioned the Irish Government in particular. We saw the Irish Navy rescuing 3,500 people from drowning in the sea. We also know that the UK Government drew HMS Bulwark from rescue operations in early June. Is the Scottish Government pressing upon the UK Government to increase its rescue operations in the med so that more people do not drown at sea? I will look into the issue, but my understanding was that although HMS Bulwark was removed, it was replaced with other vessels, but let me check on that point. Certainly, if there is more that the UK Government can do, we will always impress upon them to do that. Perhaps if I get to meet the Minister for Refugees, that will be another issue that I should most certainly raise. I think that the UK Government should give credit to the UK Government, but it is due in terms of the international aid that it has spent. I think that it is only second to the United States when it comes to international aid on Syria and those surrounding the camps. HMS Bulwark played an important role in saving lives. The other vessels, I believe that they replaced them with, may well, but all of that, I would not say pale is insignificant. That would be absolutely unfair, but certainly the root problem that we need to deal with is ensuring that refugees are taking up squally conditions in camps both in the southern coast of Europe and in neighbouring countries and brought to refuge here in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I would say finally on that point that it makes sense from a moral obligation that we have from a moral perspective, but if you were even to look at this from a rational perspective of demographics, the European continent has an ageing population and many countries have a declining population and who is going to take care of me when I get older? I do not know, because when I was at a national care home open day a couple of months ago, it seemed to me that the majority of those who worked in care homes came from an immigrant background. Perhaps there are ways of ensuring that those who come here are appropriately skilled into education and can then even fill skill shortages that exist if that is an appropriate thing to do. I want to ask you about your thoughts on a programme that I saw yesterday from Siemens in Germany, which has set up a whole training programme for refugees coming to Germany to identify the skills that people have and to fit them in or retrain them for the skills gaps that they have. I would not like to put human beings into the proposal that there is an economic bounce from tragedy, but there is a sort of equality there almost in saying that there is an economic bounce from tragedy. We have the capacity if you are willing to come here and we will support you to come here to do that, but a big company like Siemens and other German companies are following suit with that and whether that would be part of the task force in the longer term if you would be looking at Scottish companies doing something along those lines? I think that the point is well made, convener. I think that it is appropriate to put on record the leadership that the German Government has shown on the refugee crisis. I think that they have been exceptional in how they have handled this. You would have to have a heart of stone not to have been moved by the scenes of refugees coming through airports and train stations and being welcomed by the German population with signs and with flowers, with chocolates, with kisses and cuddles from kids to kids. I thought that it was a beautiful spectacle and one that I applaud the German Government but more so the German people for. I do not think that we should look at the training programme as an economic bounce from human tragedy. I would look at it as fulfilling the needs of refugees. Every refugee that I have ever come across has told me that they want to work. They are desperate to work. I have never come across a refugee who wants to be signed on. I have never come across an asylum seeker who is happy with the Azure card and £35 a week. Never. They are desperate to work. Refugees have the right to work. Asylum seekers do not have the right to work. They have the right to work when they come here as refugees. The task force will absolutely be looking at how we get people ready for employment. There will be a couple of key points to that. One will be to ensure that we have appropriate provision for teaching English. That is going to be vital in terms of integration but also to find educational and employment opportunities. That will be a huge challenge. The upscaling of teaching English will be a big challenge. On the employment front, getting ready for work programme is designed particularly for refugees will be important. A third aspect that we have not touched on but is important is to ensure that we work with local communities before refugees arrive. If I lived in an area of multiple deprivation, for example, where the unemployment rate was higher than the Scottish average and refugees were coming in and they were being given jobs, how would I feel? Understanding what is going on and working with communities is going to be absolutely vital. I cannot stress that enough because we will not have seen the acceptance of refugees on this scale in Scotland ever before. Whatever we have done before with the DRC, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan—nothing have we seen on this scale before. The very final point that Jamie McGregor made in his question to me, which I forgot to pick up on, was that he mentioned the depopulation of rural areas. There are parts of Scotland where depopulation is a real problem. Of course, with increased population comes infrastructure, access to broadband and so on and so forth. I am pleased to say that a number of local authorities that cover rural geographies of Scotland have expressed an interest in taking refugees. Many of them have done that publicly and I commend them for doing that. No doubt at all they do that for a humanitarian purpose but they also see the advantage of addressing that depopulation issue. I think that that is something that we should consider. Thank you very much, minister. Is there any final question from the committee? Minister, can we thank you very much? Obviously, the refugee crisis has dominated our session this morning and will no doubt continue to dominate. I think that we have anything to do with it to ensure that it dominates to take forward the work that is done. I should put on record that I have been a proud member of the Glasgow campaign to welcome the refugees since Margaret Wood started it and I wish her and Amal and Pinar well in the endeavours that they have undertaken this morning and I managed to wave them off on Twitter first thing this morning when they left for the airport. Can we thank you for your contribution this morning? We look forward to the pieces of work that you said you will share with the committee. We look forward to getting that and we look forward to seeing you at committee at a future date. Thank you. I am going to suspend very briefly just to allow the ambassador to come in. Good morning and welcome back to the European and External Relations Committee meeting. Our second item on the agenda today is an evidence session with the ambassador to the UK for Luxembourg. We are discussing the priorities of the Luxembourg presidency of the EU and I would like to welcome to committee this morning his Excellency Patrick Engelberg, who is the ambassador of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to the United Kingdom. Welcome to committee this morning, ambassador. I hope you had a nice evening last night. We had a wonderful reception for UN Parliament last night and I am sure the members who were there last night enjoyed themselves and very much enjoyed your speech so we are looking very much to your evidence this morning. I think that you have a brief opening statement that you want to give us. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam convener, and good morning members of the committee. May I at this place thank you once more for having hosted so great with you yesterday evening the reception of the Luxembourg presidency at the parliament. I am very honoured to be invited to give evidence this morning and to engage in dialogue with this committee on the Luxembourg presidency. I wanted also to congratulate this committee for the very keen interest you are taking in European affairs. I am very impressed when I have been browsing through the documents, the papers, reports you are producing here of the very, let's say, thorough interest you are taking in European affairs, which is a little bit intimidating because I have the impression that you know much more about Luxembourg presidencies than myself. As you know, the presidency started the 1st of July and the second semester presidencies are always slightly different from the first semester presidencies, they are shorter, and the bulk of the work is actually done in autumn because the summer break is indeed cutting a little bit our efforts. This presidency is the first to take place for us under the auspices of the new Lisbon Treaty, where the new institutional balance has been established and the presidency competencies have changed a lot. The programme is placed in the context of the implementation of the strategic agenda of the European Council adopted in June 2014, which outlines the key priorities for the European Union for the next five years. So the frame is set and the programme also takes into account the policy of orientations of the president of the commission, the commission's annual work programme and of course the trio programme of the Italian, Latvian, and Luxembourg presidencies. We see this as a genuine opportunity. It will allow us to show our attachment and our engagement vis-à-vis the European integration project and share our expertise and extensive tradition in this field. The task, which is conveyed up in us, will allow us to put at the service of Europe the qualities which we esteem very highly, the vocation to build bridges, the capacity to reconcile diverging positions and traditions, and the willingness to commit ourselves to the quest for compromise, and in general, Luxembourg will strive to apply its core values, reliability, dynamism and openness to this presidency for the benefit of the European Union. Recalling our attachment to the European integration process and to the principles and values the European Union is built upon, we have chosen an approach based on outreach and openness, listening to the citizens, supporting enterprises and collaborating with partners and institutions with a view to acting in the general interest of the EU. And as our prime minister recalled it recently, we really intend to build bridges between the member states. Later he had to say it is not going to be a routine presidency as we are facing a number of crisis intentions and we are very much concerned and dedicated to finding a solution to them. Of course, with all the member states. You know that we have seven key objectives. Let me just cite them very quickly. Stimulating investment to boost growth and employment, which is certainly the main concern of the European public. Deepening the social dimension of the EU, which has been probably neglected over the last years because we have to face so many hard decisions on our economy. Managing migration. I will certainly come back to it later. Combining freedom, justice and security. Revitalising the single market by focusing on its digital dimension, which is certainly one of our main priorities. Placing European competitiveness in the global and transparent framework. Promoting sustainable development with, of course, a very important rendezvous, which is the COP21 conference in Paris. And strengthening the European presence on the global stage. When we started the presidency, we were already in the middle of the Greek crisis. It is not, so to say, directly present the business as much of it was done in the EURO group and also at the level of the European Council. But nevertheless, chairing the Ecofin Council, Luxembourg was very much involved as well. We eventually came to what I would describe as a positive outcome. And we are very confident that the Greek people will be now back on track to improve their situation. UK regular negotiation is another of these topics where the presidency is not directly in the front line. We know the working method. But we have, obviously, as you can imagine, many contacts, high-level contacts with our British colleagues. And we assured them the full support of Luxembourg presidency in order to find a constructive, positive solution for all the parties. And we are like so many European countries in favour of reforms. EU needs to be reformed in certain places. But what we undertake must not jeopardise the key commentary nor put into question the main freedoms of the EU. And then, of course, migration. I may perhaps make some general comments on this. You know that the presidency has been very active over the last month. We have now convened for next Tuesday the third extraordinary Justice Home Affairs Council. The first was the 20th of July, where we endeavour to find a solution to relocate and resettle up to 60,000 people. The second was last Monday. It has been presented in the press a little bit quickly as not having been a success. I don't share this view. And one of the indications that it has been at least an encouraging success is that we have a follow-up meeting this Tuesday. We know what the situation is. We know what the challenges are. And the presidency is absolutely dedicated, concerned to find in spirit of solidarity and responsibility and solution with our member states in the benefit, of course, for the benefit of the refugees. The EU is working now for the last, I would say, six months very hard on this. I know that my colleagues in Brussels working around the clock non-stop on this dossier, consulting with the member states, convening many meetings. And we are confident that we will make progress, especially now what the commission has asked us last week on the relocation of 120,000 refugees. There is a broad agreement to do this. We still have to work on how we are actually going to relocate them on this mandatory quota system. We understand that for a number of member states this is problematic because for the internal or also for the political traditions it is difficult to accept such a system now. So we cannot run into forcing too quickly a decision or solution. We need probably some time that people getting used to making, perhaps doing more than they thought in the first place. But we also see the surge of generosity and welcoming among the European people throughout Europe. We saw it here in Scotland. We saw it in many countries last weekend. People going to the streets and demonstrating their willingness to help, which is very encouraging. And so we are confident that over time we will find a solution to the present problem. But we mustn't forget that it is a crisis which is probably only the tip of the iceberg. And we will be faced in the future with more waves of refugees coming to Europe. And something which hasn't been really debated so far, but this is perhaps a personal comment for myself, is we also will face perhaps one day climate refugees. So I mean it is not a problem. It is not a topic which will go away very soon. So I will stop here if I may and I'm of course open to engage in dialogue with you all on different topics. Thank you very much and there's a diversity of topics there, but you quite rightly focused on some of the more pertinent ones right now. I believe that Luxembourg has held the presidency on a number of occasions now and I think being a small nation that makes you quite agile. Do you see the benefit of your experience allowing you to, in the phrase, hit in the ground running, have an overview of the things that need to be targeted quite quickly? Is that the reason why your seven priorities are in the order that they're in? It is true that it is our 12th presidency, which gives us a certain experience. Although the last one was in 2005 under very different circumstances, very different rules, we happen to still have the same foreign minister who chaired the EU General Affairs Council for an Affairs Council in 2005 and he, like all of us, actually used to a different system. In 2005 the presidency would be at the exact centre of everything happening going on in Brussels. Now we obviously have new institutions, we have the permanent president of the European Council, we have the high representative for foreign affairs. This, of course, is in a way restricting the presidency action and activities to certain domain. So we are no longer, let's say, as pivotal, which is for us Luxembourgers also something we have to integrate and have to get used to. It is not only comfortable because we don't have to chair so many hundreds of meetings, but it is also a little bit confusing sometimes. And I must tell you that in May, June, when things start to get more concrete and also we had the Greek crisis, I got so many questions in London, what is the presidency going to do on the Greek crisis? What is the presidency going to do on British renegotiation? What is the presidency going to do on this and that? And I had to say sorry, but the Greek crisis, we are not in the driver's seat. On the British renegotiation, we must see what working method the European Council will come up with. So all this limits a little bit our margin of manoeuvre. Luxembourg made the experience over the years and this was very much reflected by the comments which were made by our partners over all these previous presences. And I think it is perhaps more typical for smaller countries and at least it is typical for Luxembourg. We tend because we believe so much into the European integration. We tend to put really the European agenda above our national interests. This sounds very idealistic, but this is truly the way how we approach European affairs. I just had a discussion and I actually illustrated how much European topics are part of our national political debate. I give you an example. I mean this committee might find this interesting when for example civil servants or ministers give evidence in Luxembourg at the various committees, the MEPs are invited to join this national parliament committee. So there is no ring fencing around national politics and European politics. I mean by this that the European debate is very much integrated in the national debate. Hence this capacity to put European affairs above national interests for these six months and this is highly considered by our member states. They trust us and I must really stress this. They trust us for pushing generally European dossiers ahead, which does not mean that of course we also put some of our national interests because we experienced certain positions, certain situations into our work program. I give you one example which is the digital single market. We are so really convinced that this is absolutely fundamental for the EU for strengthening for expanding the single market. Which is a cornerstone of the European Union for generating growth and then employment. But as a small country we experience what it means to be blocked off from digital content from other countries, this geo blocking. We know what it means because we have a small market. When we order via e-commerce abroad we get so often we don't deliver to Luxembourg or we have to pay an extra amount of money. So we know what it means to experience these sort of annoyances. In the UK you are a big country, you can order so much from British providers. In Luxembourg it's not so easy. So all this makes us really think that we should put the European agenda ahead of us. So what can a small country do? Because we enjoy the trust and the confidence from our member states we probably achieve more on certain dossiers than countries which are identified directly with how. I don't cite anyone but this country is very known for trying to push agriculture because it has its own very strong interest. For the EU, there is probably an advantage to be small and being seen as not being harmful. I'm going to bring in my colleague Willie Coffey, who's going to give you the insight into some of the challenges that we have in Scotland that are very similar to Luxembourg. The whole digital agenda has been discussed at this committee on a number of occasions and members are interested in many of the aspects of this from broadband, from mobile speeds, mobile roaming charges and so on. So I was keen to ask you about your priorities in the digital agenda and whether you might wish to make any progress in bringing earlier an end to roaming charges for mobiles across the European Union. I know that the member states pushed this back and I would like to understand why but I would like to ask you does Luxembourg also see that as a priority during your presidency and what do you think you might be able to do about it? Well, again, our national situation is such that when you have a Luxembourg mobile phone provider, so often you slide into a four-way network because the country is so small. So the Luxembourg guys are probably on an everyday basis suffering from this. And I must say that this idea to abolish roaming charges was initiated by the commissioner in charge of communication and media, Mrs Reading, who happens to be a Luxembourg commissioner, who was not immensely popular in this country for other reasons. And she doesn't get enough credit for having initiated this commission initiative to abolish roaming charges throughout Europe. Luxembourg obviously would benefit from it, but the providers were not so happy about it in Luxembourg, I must tell you, because the Luxembourg providers would suffer economically from it. But I can only see also I didn't follow directly this dossier. I can only see that the fact that it has been a little bit pushed back probably is to give more time to the industry to adapt to it because obviously a lot of money or a lot of revenues generated from the roaming charges. And so this must be bridged, but I imagine that the fact that people are now travelling and using much more mobile phones because they don't have to pay roaming charges will then compensate for the loss of roaming charges because there will be more communications. So Luxembourg Presidency, nevertheless, as we are very much putting the digital agenda as a digital single market on our top list, and this has been confirmed last week again by our ministers talking to the European Parliament, is seeing this as one of the elements of what should be made focus fast. Unfortunately, I cannot give you now an concrete deadline, but I know that we are pushing other elements, other aspects which are absolutely fundamental for the digital single market, which is data protection, for example. The Latvian colleagues managed to come to an agreement at council level, and we have scheduled the trilog discussions with the European Parliament in such a way that by the end of the year the data protection package would be agreed and the data protection package is absolutely fundamental for the digital single market. So I can imagine that roaming charges would be part of the general approach as well. Thank you for that, and I wish you luck in doing that particular agenda. I am happy to let other colleagues come in. Thank you, convener, and good morning, ambassador. I know that there is some good work that is happening around some of the women's right and gender equality. For a wee bit more detail about some of the measures that you are putting in place to ensure a balanced representation of women and men in political and economic decision making processes. It is a topic which again reflects very much our national government policy, and it is very high on our national agenda, and it is also featuring in a prominent position in our work programme. Well, if I browse quickly through my papers, but I am not sure whether I have now the latest detail how and to what point we are going to integrate, I mean push this. I know that it features, as I said, prominently in our programme of work. I will be a little bit lost now to give you more detail how exactly we are going to achieve this, but where my government and as presidency is very sensitive to this question. That is a general comment, the only thing I can tell you now. Thank you. Would you be able to give us an update on the committee at a later date? Absolutely, if I have the possibility to perhaps, by written form, to send you more. Wonderful, that would be great. Thank you very much. Jimmy McGregor. Thank you very much, convener. In relation to the current refugee crisis affecting Europe, given that the competence largely rests with member state governments, and also given the fact that this crisis is not new, that it's just escalated, I mean, for example, over the last 15 years, 30,000 people have drowned in the Mediterranean trying to get to Europe. Do you consider that the response from Europe has been unified enough, and what can your presidency do to produce a more unified response in relation to trying to stop his fearful death in the Mediterranean? Well, never stop trying, and that is what my government is doing. I mean, we absolutely conscious that it is an absolutely tragic situation for the refugees concerned. I mean, we should not forget them when we talk about the refugee crisis. We are talking about actual people have experienced in terrible hardship and thousands have drowned this year alone. And we shouldn't also forget, and this makes things a little bit more urgent, even, that in six weeks' time it will be winter in the Balkans, in Turkey, Lebanon, and so we are really running out of time. The only possibility we have as a presidency is to keep trying, never stop trying, convening one Justice Home Affairs Council after the other, being sensitive to the idea that we might have an extraordinary European Council perhaps in October. We know that the European Council will be, one in October, will be almost exclusively dealing with the refugee crisis, and trying to convince the member states that we need to show the necessary solidarity. Solidarity, of course, with first the refugees, but also among ourselves. Solidarity is not the one-way street as we know, and it is sometimes a little bit more complex than it is perhaps presented in press or in political slogans. I mean, and Mr Juncker last week, he made a very, very long intervention on this, and he said very strong and very true things. And at the same time he expressed a lot of solidarity with the three countries which are in the front line, including Hungary. Hungary is now obviously facing a new situation because so far it was mainly Greece and Italy. Hungary now has 140 or so thousand people already on its soil, so it is an absolutely difficult situation, and some countries are not used to managing this. Hungary and Italy have a long experience, unfortunately, but they have systems in place, they have procedures, they have the people who are knowledgeable and who have experience other countries don't. So the solidarity is not only to say you are according to Dublin, you must do this and that, I mean the Dublin procedures, but it is also that the member states which are far away from the front line understand the hardship of those at the front line. The solidarity goes in different directions, and we are, as I said in my introduction, literally working around the clock, non-stop in Brussels producing papers. We did it for last Monday. We didn't succeed in having conclusions, proper official conclusions. This is why we adopted presidency conclusions, and we didn't do it if we weren't confident enough that this is indicating a robust process towards eventually coming to formal country conclusions. But we made already progress on the number of 120,000. We know that it is not enough, but we must go in an incremental way because otherwise also our public opinions will not be able to swallow and to digest all this. We agreed on reinforcing our borders, border control. We agreed to giving more means to front-ex. We agreed to be more concrete and more operational when it comes to return policies because we know that a number of economic migrants are now also coming over with the refugees. Our record in sending people back while not entitled to refugee status is not very good. We know this. In working on all this satellite dossiers, which are so important when it comes to the crisis as a whole, we also show solidarity with the member states who gets the first wave of refugees coming. He understands that not only are we sending money and volunteers and perhaps also equipment, but we are also working on a policy which will, in a medium term, relieve them from this huge effort because we will have better agreements with countries for the return. We will have better agreements with third countries of transit. We will at last have an EU agreement on safe countries where we can send people back and so on and so on so that at the next stage there will be less people coming to these countries. Solidarity is a very, very complex thing. We know that the problem won't go away so we must remain hands-on and we must not put ourselves under undue pressure as well. The meeting last Monday was not meant to solve the crisis once and for all. Unfortunately, press was saying, they didn't succeed, Schengen is dead, all these sort of things. It doesn't help. We cannot forbid press to say what press wants to say, but we must remain constant and determined in what we are doing and that all the member states feel that we are developing a strong policy which ultimately will help us collectively to face these problems in the future. Thank you, your Excellency, very much for that. Just in terms of changing EU procedures or improving EU procedures, will the EU reform be on the agenda for the December European Council meeting and what are the most important things that you think will be discussed with that? I mean now EU reform in a more general sense. I think EU reform is on our agenda for quite a while and when you see what this present commission is doing, the mandate given to Vice President Timmermans on when you see our work on better regulation, when you see the inter-institutional agreement which is going to be, we very much intend to have inter-institutional agreement adopted in December indeed, which is part of our reform effort. When you see indeed that stimulated by the British will of legal negotiations that indeed there are some reform points which are going to be discussed, we are not only in an ongoing reform process but it is true that in December we intend to have some stock taking where we stand with reform. The Luxembourg presidency wants to have certain things agreed until then, like institutional agreement. We know that as a sort of front of rule clause to discuss again British renegotiation, we know that this is worked on in dedicated working groups so we are quite confident that in December indeed we will have a reform agenda to discuss and hopefully to agree on. The European Convention on Human Rights is quite controversial among some people in the United Kingdom. Can you give us an update on what is happening about the possible accession of the European Union to the convention itself? Well, consideration as well, which are not of, let's say, presidency competence to solve this, but it is clearly one of the points in our agenda. I may perhaps find the proper wording which has been agreed on. It is, as we know, part of the treaty to do it and we are waiting actually for the opinion of the European Court of Justice on this because I remember that this indeed was this legal question which remains open. Luxembourg is very much absolutely in favour of the accession but I know that in this country there are different views. Indeed, moving on to another slightly contentious issue, T-Tip, are there anything that you can add to the promotion of maximum transparency point in relation to ISDS or I should call it investment court system that seems to be renamed by commissioners? Is there anything you can add to that? Yes. Luxembourg is among the group of countries which were absolutely not happy with ISDS proposal. The public in Luxembourg generally is quite hesitant not to have such an agreement. On the other hand, Luxembourg is a very open economy and we owe our success to having a very open trade with our neighbouring countries and abroad and further but we were very uncomfortable with this ISDS system and Luxembourg was among the countries who proposed a different system and this indeed has also been supported by the European Parliament to have a court of independent judges rather than a sort of arbitration system where the transparency and also the appointment of the member of this system would not be transparent enough and not be in line of our understanding what also the competence of national states and parliaments should be. So an intentional court of independent judges is something very much supported by Luxembourg. In order to improve the transparency, Luxembourg has decided as a presidency to organise a public debate in Brussels. I think it is in November in order to have the general public, the trade unions participate in this debate and to make sure that the public gets some sort of ownership on what's really going on in TTIP. Among the countries who fully understood why in the beginning there was a lot of reservation among the European public because it was seen as something behind closed doors which eventually would cause a lot of negative consequences in many, many fields. I know in this country in the UK there are also a lot of reservations on certain aspects and the fact you have now a much more transparent approach by the commission which can probably even be improved over the time and having this public debate organised by the presidency in November in Brussels should enhance and improve this public understanding what's going on. Did that general public debate have specific invitations being given to any people in Scotland? I'm not aware if there will be some formal invitations or if it is just an open invitation but it is certainly a matter I can let's say check and let you know how this is going to be. I take it from your question that the Scottish Parliament would be interested to or this committee would be interested to be involved or? I'm very interested in hearing more about it. The committee is taking a very keen interest in TTIP. It has been a very hot topic of conversation over the past few months, not only within the committee but on the social media related to the committee. We have many, many constituents who have raised concerns about the whole process so it's something that we keep our watching brief on. Clare Baker, do you want to come in with a question? Yes, thank you, convener. It was just asking the ambassadors to possibly reflect on Luxembourg's experience of having the presidency. You said the last time was 2005. We could look back at that period in Europe's history. It's been a time where it was making great progress on social rights, on trade union rights. It was seen as quite a positive force for change. Now taking the presidency on, there are so many challenges and difficulties, particularly in the economic terms facing the European community. How do you find the change and what are the challenges for the European project? Do you recognise that there's been a significant shift? How do you make it increasingly a feeling that it's not relevant to people in their own communities or in their own life? How do you increase that understanding of what the European Union has to offer and make it more relevant to the public? Well, I think your question goes straight to the core of our approach. Obviously after the 2008 crisis we were all very busy saving our national budgets, fighting debts and all these sort of things and we probably all neglected the social dimension of it, of the EU. And this opened also the door to radical parties, as we've seen in some countries, which then become hugely popular because there was a promising number of improvements to the general publics which might be very unrealistic. Luxembourg is a country where in general we are very much conscious and aware of the necessity of a strong social dimension and we are very much convinced that this applies to the EU as a whole. And we are also very well aware and I think this is shared by all the member states that the EU has become very distant, very difficult to comprehend by the general public. It is a far away strange animal and people don't connect with it anymore. And therefore we gave the title to our programme, A Union for the Citizens, because we want to reconnect the general public and the EU. We make, as you just spoke about making relevant, that is exactly what we want. We want to make the EU relevant again for the European citizens. And that is why we also structured our seven priorities in such a way that indeed we start with economic growth, which is fundamental for giving us a means to be more social than afterwards. But this economic growth should not be a detriment of the people. That is why we need to connect economic growth with the social dimension. But when we need to improve the social dimension, we do not mean by this that we should just spread out a lot of money, give more benefits to people, which would be counterproductive actually. But we want, for example, to reform labour markets. We want to make sure that our young people get the right education, the right skills in order to find a job later. We want also, obviously, to improve working conditions in certain sectors. One could spring to my mind, for example, the transport sectors, where we know that the lawry drivers experience a lot of hard working conditions. So, we might perhaps this see as a point where we could, on certain sectors, improve the working conditions. We want really to make sure that the European citizen is seeing that the EU is having a policy which ultimately will be of, for their benefit. That is why we want to deepen, to expand, to improve the single market. This may sound very remote from what people think, but it means concretely that there will be more jobs. That is why we are so convinced and working hard on the digital single market, because not only the digital single market is adding a new layer to the single market, but it is the future. It is how the economy will function and will be run in the future. And we must be sure that at the same time we give the digital skills to our populations. Not only to be comfortable when they are on Facebook and surfing on the media, but also to get the right skills to be able to apply for the new jobs which are going to be created. And also make some access products and services. Another dimension of making the EU more relevant is that we are more concrete and bring more positive outcome on sustainable development. Environment protection, because we all live in an environment which needs to be protected. And if the public is seeing the EU as having a positive policy there, that again is making the EU more relevant in the people's eyes. We must absolutely make sure that people see the EU as a positive thing, a positive force, and they do not lose confidence and then just follow radical parties who happen to be very often anti-EU. The EU is a positive thing, that is at least what we are very much convinced in Luxembourg, and that is also the conviction of the Luxembourg presidency. Is there any other questions from committee members? I think that we may have exhausted our questions to you this morning, Ambassador. Can I thank you very much for joining us at committee this morning? We look forward to an on-going dialogue with you. Can we wish you from this committee all the best with your presidency? I see that you have lots of challenges ahead of you, but I see a determination to face those challenges. We wish you well in that work, and we will be keeping a keen interest in how you do that. Thank you very much indeed. I will let you stay with us right now to finish this next piece of information, and then we will go into the private session of our committee afterwards. Our next agenda item is agenda item 3, which is our work Brussels Bulletin. If you have any questions, queries or comments, Willie. Thanks, convener. Can I draw members' attention to page 7, the issue that the item that is titled cyber security? This is really about this vision about the internet of things, IOT means in the future we will be looking at more and more electronic devices being able to communicate and share data. In a variety of ways, presumably to help people make decisions and choices and so on, but clearly with that comes a concern about security and data security when this is being shared. I was concerned, convener, to read there that Europe's cyber security agency feels that it is unprepared for this challenge. While I do not think that there is any work for us to do as a committee here, I think that it is worth highlighting this and perhaps if we could get some more information about it. As the ambassador himself mentioned, the digital single market is very important and this is a natural progression for technology to take, but it brings risks as well. I am a wee bit surprised to read that a European security agency is unprepared for this eventuality and I think that somewhere within Europe some work must be done on this to take this forward. I will do some investigations and discuss it a later date. Anything else in the Brussels bulletin? Just on the agriculture side, I noticed that there is a £500 million emergency package to support European farmers and for the dairy sector. Do we know yet the amounts that the Scottish Government is going to have to give to Scottish dairy farmers? I think that that information is something that is imminent. I am sure that Richard Lochhead has got some dialogue set up now on that, so I think that we can investigate that and find out. Anything else in the Brussels bulletin? Can we commend the Brussels bulletin to our other subject committees of the Parliament? We ensure that the Rural Committee gets sight of Jamie's contribution and the Brussels bulletin there and it would be infrastructure committee for both of those committees, both of those items. That concludes our business in public today for our committee. I thank the very full public gallery that we had today. I hope that we all got something out of the committee and we look forward to engaging with you all on social media. I know that you are all quite new students to the university and we are looking forward for this committee to engage with you. I am going to suspend now to allow the committee to go into private and thank you all very much for your attendance.