European and External Relations Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, September 29, 2016

Official Report 659KB pdf

---

Presidency of the Council of the European Union (Priorities)

Our next item of business is an evidence session with the Slovakian ambassador to the UK, as Slovakia holds the six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Union. I welcome His Excellency L’ubomír Rehák—good morning.

Good morning.

Before we move to questions from members, I give the ambassador the opportunity to make opening remarks.

Thank you, convener. Dear members of the Scottish Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure and honour to join you to share with you priorities of the Slovak presidency of the Council of the European Union, in which we highly estimate the mission of Parliaments in keeping constant dialogue with citizens on executive power.

The role of the Parliaments in EU policy increased significantly after the Lisbon treaty was adopted. Interparliamentary co-operation is a key ingredient of an accountable European Union.

I will say a few words about my country. After 12 years of EU membership, Slovakia is honoured to lead the Union this semester. The presidency is a milestone for us. We have a really good story to tell, which began with the dream of our people to return to the free and democratic world and continued with our integration into the European family of nations, to which we are bound by our rich history, diverse cultures and common values. Indeed, the phrase “back to Europe” was one of the principal credos of the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989. It was the voice of our European identity.

We are proud to call the EU our home, the euro our currency and the Schengen area our area. The EU provides us with security, stability and prosperity, and we are grateful for that. We have been given a lot, and we do our best to contribute to the common success of the European project.

The consequences of the United Kingdom’s referendum will dominate the EU agenda in the coming months and years. EU members express their regret at the referendum’s outcome, and there is a vital interest in having the UK as a close partner of the EU after separation. I express my personal appreciation of the Scottish people, who were able to recognise the positive sides of the European Union, despite enormous anti-Europe attacks during the referendum campaign.

I understand that many members would be interested in hearing more than I can tell you. I think that you will understand that it is not for ambassadors, as civil servants, to comment on the political choices of their hosting states or to provide political guidance on behalf of their own countries.

Let me therefore just recall certain principles that were agreed at the informal meeting of the EU27 in June and which remain valid. The basic principle is that article 50 of the EU treaty provides the legal basis for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, that it is up to the UK to notify the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the EU and that there should be no negotiations prior to the UK’s notification.

We understand the political message, “Brexit means Brexit,” which is that the UK Government wants to proceed with implementation of the referendum result, although it will not trigger article 50 before the end of this year. That means that article 50 will not be triggered during the Slovak presidency, which explains why I cannot go much further without overstepping the mandate of the Slovak presidency of the Council.

There is no intention on the EU side to prolong the processes artificially. On the contrary, in the interest of reducing uncertainty and the potential for further economic damage, there is willingness to proceed expeditiously. British and European citizens deserve to know exactly what Brexit means for their lives, and any artificial prolongation of uncertainty will create space on both sides for further disinformation, political destabilisation, social and even xenophobic tension and economic problems.

In the meantime, the EU member states cannot stand idle. Self-reflection has become a must, not an option. The vox populi that was expressed in the British referendum has been clearly heard and reflects the worries of many Europeans and not just the British.

The informal EU27 summit in Bratislava on 16 September was a first step in that regard. The summit’s aim was to diagnose the present state of the Union as it faces the withdrawal of one of its most important members and to discuss the approach to our common future beyond Brexit. In the Bratislava road map, three key areas have been defined where significant progress needs to be made urgently. The first is migration and external borders; the second is internal and external security; and the third is economic and social development and the problems of youth.

It has been agreed that Bratislava is just the beginning of the reflection process. The process will lead through Valletta, during the upcoming Maltese presidency, towards Rome, where we will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the treaties of Rome establishing European integration. That will round off the process that was launched in Bratislava and will set out the orientations for our common future together.

The Slovak presidency naturally does not have a prescription for all current European problems, but we want to be both pragmatic and realistic while leading the Union this semester. To achieve a visible contribution to on-going processes, we have set four ambitions for the presidency. The first is to make the European economy stronger; the second is to modernise and broaden the single market in areas such as energy and the digital economy; the third is to work towards a sustainable migration and asylum policy; and the fourth is to pay attention to our external environment—namely, trade deals and enlargement policy.

I will start with the European economy. We will support an environment that is favourable to investment, further economic growth and job creation. For that to happen, we will work on the deepening of the economic and monetary union and the banking union. Building the capital markets union will also be part of our focus. During our presidency, we will deal with the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework and the budget of the Union for 2017, which must both better reflect EU priorities and capacities to help to resolve the latest challenges.

There is no doubt that the single market is a success story. The four freedoms represent an excellent example of the concrete benefits of the EU for its citizens and for national economies but, to keep up with global technological advancement, the single market needs implementation of two new pillars: the digital single market and the energy union. Free movement of data has the unique potential to remove barriers and create new opportunities for businesses and citizens. Our presidency welcomes the adoption of a digital single market package as of 25 May, and now we will work on its implementation.

The energy union can contribute to secure supplies of clean energy at affordable prices for industry and citizens. To achieve that goal, our presidency is ready to work on further enhancing diversification of resources, suppliers and transit routes and on strengthening the energy interconnectivity of member states. The energy union project is led by the Slovak member of the European Commission—Commission vice-president Maroš Šefcovic.

It is no surprise that a sustainable migration and asylum policy belongs in our top priorities, and that will remain an urgent issue not only during our presidency but in years to come. Moreover, it is not just some EU disease; it is a global problem.

Large-scale involuntary migration will be the most likely global risk for decades to come. We can help to resolve it only through joint EU-wide efforts, in co-ordination with other global stakeholders. For that purpose, the Slovak presidency promotes comprehensive and sustainable solutions that link all the relevant internal and external aspects.

We must return to a proper functioning of the Schengen area. We know that the European border and coastguards will soon become operational. We will support initiatives such as the smart borders package and effective co-operation with third countries of both origin and transit of migrants.

To speak of asylum policy alone, let us not narrow it to a single initiative such as the distribution of refugees under the Dublin regulation, which Slovakia has criticised for its unsustainability. We need a comprehensive common European asylum system reform package. The European Commission is working on that issue and we are ready to contribute to its urgent implementation. Besides that, legal migration should be an instrument to attract highly qualified experts from third countries—wherever they are needed for our growing economies—to complement the existing free movement of workers in the EU.

10:30  

We want the European Union to be a strong global player and our external partners expect us to continue our high-level engagement in global affairs. We must therefore continue to pay attention to our external environment. I speak particularly of trade agreements and enlargement policy.

We believe that free trade is a significant contributor to the internal and external stability of the EU. Despite the disagreement of some EU member states, Slovakia is convinced that the transatlantic trade and investment partnership will have a positive impact on the EU’s growth and employment and on the overall wellbeing of its citizens, so we stand ready to support the European Commission to reach a balanced agreement while safeguarding the high level of EU standards. Equally, we support an early approval of CETA with Canada, which we reiterated a week ago in Bratislava at the informal meeting of the foreign affairs council for trade.

During our presidency, we are ready to work on the implementation of a new European global strategy for the common foreign and security policy. At the same time, we will remain a vocal advocate of a more effective and preventive European neighbourhood policy. To the east, we wish to put a strong emphasis on stabilisation and reform processes and, to the south, we would like to focus, inter alia, on countries that are causing massive migration flows to Europe.

We will also try to ensure the credibility of the enlargement policy. Given our experience, we consider the enlargement policy to be one of the EU’s most effective transformation tools, and it is a key instrument for stabilising our neighbourhood. We want to actively communicate that the path towards the EU requires countries to do their own homework.

Lastly, I stress that, in pursuing our presidency priorities, Slovakia will continue to be an honest and fair broker, as it should be. I am ready to hear your comments and to answer questions.

Thank you very much, your excellency. It is very pleasing to have you, as a representative of Slovakia, in Scotland this week. I learned a lot about your country at the reception that you held in Edinburgh last night—it was extremely interesting.

A number of members would like to ask questions. I will start. What effect has the Slovakian presidency had on Slovakia’s relationships with other member states in the European Union?

Could you reformulate the question, please?

What has the effect of the Slovakian presidency been on your relationships with other member states in the European Union? How have you benefited from holding the presidency?

Holding the presidency is important for any member state. The rotating principle was established in order that every member state—whether big or small, and regardless of the size of its economy—could have a chance to drive the organisation for half a year. It is a principle of equality.

For Slovakia, the presidency is an excellent opportunity to focus attention on topics that are important to us, but it is also an enormously positive tool to increase the country’s visibility. We are making use of all the informal meetings in Slovakia to do that. During this semester, we will have more than 200 meetings of EU formations in Bratislava and roughly 20,000 participants will come to Slovakia.

Slovakian diplomatic missions are also doing a lot to promote Slovakia abroad. That is why, when I was invited by this esteemed committee, I decided to stay for a whole working week in Scotland. I have met not only members of the Scottish Parliament, but those with executive power and people in business and universities. I am having discussions with four Scottish universities and with local authorities as well, because we need greater expertise in—to give a specific example—current developments in the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union. Everywhere, we are promoting our small but positive and progressive country.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, and thank you for explaining, from the perspective of the Slovakian people, the benefits of being a member of the European family of nations.

Brexit is going to dominate a lot of your Government’s thinking throughout the duration of the presidency and beyond. In the Financial Times a couple of weeks ago, your Prime Minister was quoted as stating that the European Union will make sure that the UK’s leaving the European Union is “very painful” for the UK. Can you elaborate on that and define the kind of pain that you think will be caused to the UK by its leaving the EU?

It is not up to an ambassador to comment on the Prime Minister’s statements in interviews. However, I am of the opinion that what he expressed in an open and sincere way is exactly what the European leaders are worried about.

I hope that you will allow me to philosophise a little bit. In our political culture, we got accustomed to the excessive use of constructive ambiguity in our statements, and our citizens stopped understanding what their political representatives meant. Therefore, an appeal for clarity was made when the EU leaders met in Bratislava in September, which I will quote from:

“We should inject more clarity into our decisions. Use clear and honest language. Focus on citizens’ expectations, with strong courage to challenge simplistic solutions of extreme or populist political forces.”

That is what politicians have in mind when they try to explain what the problem is in clear words.

It would be naive to think that such a complex issue as engagement with a big member state of the European Union could be an easy exercise; it will definitely require long and tough negotiations to agree a mutually acceptable deal. The Prime Minister probably mentioned pain in order to make it better understood that it is a really complex problem that will require a lot of negotiations. Citizens must be aware that it will be a difficult process and that the whole of Europe, not only the United Kingdom, will suffer at a certain level because of it.

Because Scotland voted to remain in the EU, if the EU makes it difficult for countries to leave it without a great deal of pain—that is what we expect to be the case—that will understandably cause concern about the impact on Scotland. As you are aware, the Scottish Government is pursuing options to find out whether it is possible for Scotland to maintain its relationship with Europe, particularly as a member of the single market.

If the UK Government were to give Scotland the go-ahead to explore those options properly—that is, to have negotiations with member states and European institutions—would the Slovakian Government and presidency support that?

In my opinion, it is too early to speculate on that question, because we are not even aware of the basic parameters of a British exit from the European Union, so we really need to wait for—[Interruption.] Is the microphone working?

We need to wait for the British Government to formulate its negotiating position, which will be considered by the circle of 27 member states and their negotiator. I cannot make any promise on behalf of one Government, because it will be a consensual act of negotiation that will bring us to this result. I therefore cannot answer your question seriously.

Does the Slovakian presidency or Government have a view on what the timescale should be for finally getting some kind of indication or understanding of the UK Government’s position on the negotiation and all its different aspects?

We adopted the programme for the Slovak presidency only after the referendum. In other words, we waited for the referendum in order to declare in the presidency priorities whether the February agreement between David Cameron’s Government and the EU would be implemented or whether we had to tackle the new question of a British exit from the European Union. We have expressed our readiness to start the process; the ball is now with the British Government, and we expect that things will happen once article 50 is triggered and the official negotiations start. For our part, we are ready for the negotiations.

Thank you very much, your excellency. I must advise you that your microphone works automatically, so you do not need to worry about pressing any buttons.

I will start with what I hope is a more factual question, which will then lead on to a slightly more political one.

Didier Seeuws has been appointed to represent the Council of the European Union in the negotiations, Michel Barnier has been appointed to represent the Commission and Guy Verhofstadt has been appointed to represent the European Parliament. How will the presidency relate to each of those three individuals and the various parties to the negotiations?

The fact that every European institution has nominated a representative shows that every institution wants to be involved in the processes. Once the British Government officially notifies the European Union of its interest in leaving the organisation and triggering article 50, the European Council will need to convene and nominate the body that will undertake the negotiations. It has not been decided which body that will be, but for such operations, the European Union has a technical organism called the European Commission, which has full expertise in having practical negotiations. Heads of state and Governments have already declared that they want to keep control of the process, so a mechanism will be found to ensure that they, too, are involved. The same is true of the European Parliament. Every process needs to be supervised, and the three people that you mentioned were nominated to do that work.

Just to allow me to understand the process, are you able to tell me whether Michel Barnier will lead on the negotiations or whether he will lead just on the day-to-day negotiations and then report back to the Council as well as the Commission?

10:45  

He will be the negotiator for, and will report to, the Commission, but it is up to the Council’s decision. We need to await the British Government’s formal notification and then the European Council will decide on further procedures.

So it is not yet settled.

No, because it would be preliminary. We do not know even the parameters of a British exit from the European Union.

That is helpful.

One of the interesting issues is the statement made by the Visegrád four, which includes the Slovakian Government, on freedom of movement. Although you have described areas of agreement among the 27 member states, it appears from that statement and comments that have been made that some member states have stronger views on certain aspects of the potential negotiations than others do. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that a public statement on freedom of movement by Slovakia and its neighbours reflects concern about the European Union’s potential negotiating position on that issue. Will you comment on that? Is it a fair interpretation?

All political leaders, especially Governments, express their views. We are not yet reacting to concrete parameters for a British exit, but there was a reaction to comments by British politicians who are establishing by public statement certain red lines for future negotiations regarding, for instance, freedom of movement. The statement that you mention was a reaction to those.

It is correct to mention EU citizens who live and work in the UK, who are not migrants but people who are using the four freedoms of the common space. They have moved to your country legally and for bona fide reasons, using the opportunities of the common market. The same applies to British citizens who work in the EU, naturally. Our Prime Minister expressed the wish of the Slovak Government and, in the Visegrád format, the wishes of the Czech, Polish, Hungarian and Slovak Governments that adequate attention be paid to that problem in the negotiations when they start.

In fact, article 4 of the June Council statement from after your referendum says:

“Access to the Single Market requires acceptance of all four freedoms.”

Therefore, that is the generally agreed line of the European Union in that context.

Is it fair to say that the stress laid on that issue by the Visegrád group is simply a view of four member states and does not necessarily bind, or reflect the opinion of, the Slovakian presidency of the Council for its period of office?

Yes, you are right.

Is it your understanding that it is not possible for a state to have access to, or be a member of, the single market without also having the free movement of people?

A table without one leg will be very labile. That is the problem. We should not put at a disadvantage other members of the club by giving an advantage to one of them. That is one of the results of the heads of state meetings in Bratislava. The Bratislava road map stated precisely that. I am sorry that I cannot find the exact quote at the moment.

The Visegrád statement suggested that those four countries at least would veto any deal that excluded free movement of people. Is it your Government’s position that it would veto any deal that did not allow free movement of people?

I am just trying to check the Visegrád statement to see whether it says that those countries would veto such a deal. It might not be written in that form, but that is definitely the common interest of central European countries. We and our neighbours have dozens of thousands of citizens living in the UK and we are obliged to protect the rights of our citizens.

Your prime minister, Robert Fico, used his speech at the European Parliament to outline the strength of the EU, saying that it is an amazing and unique project and that although the EU is not perfect, there is no alternative. I also read that one of your three principles is to restore citizens’ confidence in the common European project.

Has the UK EU referendum result caused uncertainty amongst the remaining 27 member states? Are they questioning their membership of the EU?

As I tried to explain in my introductory remarks, it is a big issue for the union and the result of the British referendum was a wake-up call for the whole of Europe about how people react to campaigns. We now realise that we do not pay enough attention to the underlying positive aspects of European integration. All the positives are taken for granted, especially by the younger generation. They do not think about the need for passports when they visit neighbouring countries, because they simply do not need them. From time to time we need to remind everyone of the advantages of the European Union project.

The EU is definitely not perfect, nor can it ever be, but it is the best integration project that Europe has ever had. It has guaranteed peace and stability in Europe for the last 70 years. We must underline that all the time in our public communications. Unfortunately we are witnessing that good news is not news and people want to talk only about negative experiences, rather than the positive aspects. That happens, naturally; this is a live organism and it is not perfect.

The attitude of our presidency, which was also set out in the Bratislava declaration, is that there is a need for sincere and open communication with citizens:

“We committed in Bratislava to offer to our citizens in the upcoming months a vision of an attractive EU they can trust and support. We are confident that we have the will and the capacity to achieve it.”

That is the concrete message of the political leaders of the EU.

Immigration control was one of the main reasons why a lot of people in the UK voted to leave. Would you like to give your opinion on whether other countries are looking to reform areas of EU policy, such as immigration?

We think that it is necessary to reform the immigration system, because last year developments showed that the number of not illegal but irregular migrants who came to Europe was too big to absorb, and it is starting to threaten the security of the union, its member states and individual citizens. We need to use all the instruments available to halt that process, and there are many such instruments. Some are short-perspective instruments aimed at the resolution of acute problems, such as the EU agreement with Turkey, which was unbelievable before but now the EU can agree that mechanism to stop the enormous flow from Turkey to the Schengen area through Greece. Instruments of foreign and security policy must be involved in that process. We need to make more effort in conflict countries to stop military conflicts and prevent humanitarian emigration of people from affected regions. That is very important. We also need to do something with the European asylum system, because the Geneva convention was adopted in the 1950s and does not reflect the realities of the 21st century.

I want to pick up on two comments that you made about the EU. One was about a wake-up call and the other was that all positives are taken for granted. Do you see the UK’s decision to leave the EU project as a threat to the future existence of the EU? What opportunities do you see for reform and progress and for making the EU more realistic and tangible for its members and for those who live in EU countries?

The fairest answer that I can give is to quote the declaration of the heads of states of the EU 27, made in Bratislava, where they agreed:

“Although one country has decided to leave, the EU remains indispensable for the rest of us. In the aftermath of the wars and deep divisions on our continent, the EU secured peace, democracy and enabled our countries to prosper. Many countries and regions outside still only strive for such achievements. We are determined to make a success of the EU with 27 Member States, building on this joint history.”

I think that that is generally the answer. There is a strong determination for the EU to continue as a bloc and not to be tempted by the idea that, because one member state is leaving, the whole club should be dissolved, because we do not have an alternative for the EU.

One of the things about the EU that has been apparent over the years has been its flexibility in finding solutions to problems that arise. What flexibility do you think the EU could adopt in relation to the situation for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, which all voted very much in favour of remaining part of the EU?

11:00  

I am afraid that I am not competent to answer that question. It is an internal affair of the United Kingdom, which is a member state of the union. Once there are some developments that the EU is entitled to react to, it will definitely react. Meanwhile, it is impossible to speculate on such sensitive issues.

I expected you to say that, but I thought that I would try.

Given that Slovakia has the presidency of the EU, would it prefer article 50 to be triggered sooner or later to allow meaningful discussions to take place?

I have already tried to explain that our aim is to have clarity as soon as possible, because we feel that markets are waiting and are not developing. Nothing tragic has happened after the referendum, but those in economic circles would assure you that capitals are awaiting further developments. There is no significant investment, because everybody is in waiting mode, which is detrimental for economies. Prolongation of those uncertainties is detrimental to all of us. That is why we would like to have a clear vision from our British partners of what future relationship they envisage between the United Kingdom and Europe.

So the lack of vision and clarity is creating economic uncertainty, in terms of investment decisions.

Yes, that is right.

In previous meetings, we have discussed the human aspects of Brexit, such as the relationships between people and the movement of people. Are you or your Prime Minister, Robert Fico, concerned that EU workers will be treated as second-class citizens during the Brexit process?

As I understand it, Prime Minister Fico has expressed the view that the rights of workers could be the topic of negotiations and that could potentially harm the interests of EU workers in the UK and the interests of British workers in other EU countries. He has expressed the view that that is simply not acceptable from our point of view, because the Government must take care of citizens’ rights. Those citizens have not done anything illegal—they are legally in a space. That is legally binding, so every Government of that common space must accept it.

On that topic, as you are ambassador to the Court of St James’s, have you made representations to the UK Government in relation to securing the rights of your citizens living in the UK?

As ambassadors, we have had a couple of meetings with UK Government representatives, particularly after the referendum and the cases of physical and verbal attacks on people from the European Union. We understand that those were leftovers of the negative campaign in the referendum and the rise of a xenophobic movement. We were told that the British Government is following the situation closely and is not allowing any violation of human rights or the laws of this country and is not allowing any hate crimes in that regard.

You will of course be aware that in Scotland, where we voted to remain, the Parliament, the First Minister and indeed all the political leaders have been very clear that EU citizens are very welcome in Scotland—and Slovakian citizens are very welcome in Scotland.

Ambassador, to go back to Rachael Hamilton’s question, there has been much mention by your Prime Minister of repairing the holes that have been made in the Schengen area and of addressing—as you have mentioned—issues around refugees and asylum seekers coming to Europe. Does the Slovakian Government distinguish between economic migrants, who are coming here for reasons of choice, and refugees who are fleeing war in Syria, Somalia, Yemen and so on?

The Slovakian Government has rejected the idea of quotas to spread the number of refugees arriving across Europe. You have yourself mentioned the deal made with Turkey. Many of the refugees who arrive cannot be pushed back to Turkey, because they have not arrived through Turkey; they have travelled, say, through Libya to Italy. What is the Slovakian Government’s position regarding those refugees who cannot be pushed back through Turkey?

Our Government’s stance is that although it is a global issue, for us it is a European issue and it must be resolved in a European way. We have tried to attract the attention of political debate to this topic and to the fact that perhaps the majority of the people who are travelling irregularly to the European Union are not from conflict regions but are economic migrants. We have other procedures—legal instruments—to attract a workforce to Europe, and the situation is simply not acceptable.

Some legal procedures were needed to stop the massive migration. One of those was the agreement with Turkey—a big portion of refugees came from there. Another route is through the Mediterranean. You are right, unfortunately; for now, we do not have a partner on the other side, because Libya does not have a Government. The task for common foreign and security policy instruments is to influence the situation in Libya in order to help establish a working Government and to make it possible to create hotspots on Libyan territory where people being taken by sea could be brought to start the process of gathering information about which persons are asylum seekers and which are economic migrants. Those are various parts of the process that must be tackled.

You asked about obligatory distribution. We are in favour of voluntary distribution. We do not think that obligatory distribution can be achieved in an open union without borders. If somebody wishes to go to Germany, we cannot put a chain on him and tell him that he will stay in Slovakia. Unfortunately we are not able to do that, and we have stated that. We were accused of all the sins of the world for that, but that is the fact. That is the way that the population understands the arguments and perceives the meaning of the words. We could say that we would accept the mechanism, but then 90 per cent of those who came to Slovakia would immediately leave for Germany. Why be so hypocritical? This is an attempt to establish a new form of communication with the population. Sometimes that is perceived very negatively and critically, particularly by the media.

Is there a recognition of the concern that many Europeans have about Turkey? A deal has been done with Turkey to push refugees back there, but in fact many refugees, particularly Kurdish refugees, flee Turkey because of the persecution that they face from the Turkish Government, not from places further than Turkey, such as Syria, which they have fled from. Turkey itself is a nation that produces refugees because of its Government’s oppression.

That is not a question for the presidency. That is definitely not among the presidency’s priorities.

Very diplomatic.

You said earlier that one of the four ambitions for the Slovakian presidency is to deepen economic and monetary union. How do you envisage that going forward from this point?

I have a little more information about the economy.

I am interested in monetary union in particular.

If you are interested in more in-depth information about the monetary aspect of the union we can send you full information about current developments in that sphere. We had an informal meeting of the economic and financial affairs council—ecofin—a week ago in Bratislava, and it took some steps forward in that area.

That would be very helpful. Two weeks ago, Jean-Claude Juncker said that it was something that he hoped would be in the white paper following this presidency. It would be very useful to understand how that looks.

If you could get that information to the committee, we would all very much appreciate it.

Thank you, your excellency, for giving us your evidence today. I wish you well for the rest of your time in Scotland.

Thank you.

11:11 Meeting continued in private until 11:29 and then suspended.  

13:24 On resuming—