 Good morning and welcome to the eighth meeting of the European and External Relations Committee in session 5. I would like to remind members and the public to turn off mobile phones, and any members using electronic devices to access committee papers during the meeting should ensure that their switch to silent. We have received apologies from Jackson Carlaw, and our first item of business today is an evidence session on the implications of the eu referendum ar Scotland. I would like to welcome to the meeting Michael Russell, Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland's Place in Europe, and Frank Strang, Deputy Director of External Affairs with the Scottish Government. Thank you for attending today, and I would like to invite Mr Russell to make some opening remarks. Thank you, convener, and thank you for your invitation to come to speak to you this morning. Following the referendum, the Scottish Parliament mandated the Scottish Government to have discussions with the UK Government, other devolved administrations, the EU institutions and member states to explore options for protecting Scotland's relationship with the EU, its place in the single market and the social, employment and economic benefits that we all draw from that. This mandate resembles much of my own job description. In the role that I will focus on engagement with the UK Government and other devolved administrations with Fiona Heslop leading in Europe, I will consider all options for Scotland's future place in Europe and will engage with stakeholders to understand their views in order to better inform the Scottish Government's negotiating position. Of course, I should say at the outset that it remains the Scottish Government's view that full membership of the European Union is the best outcome for Scotland. We campaign for that outcome because all the evidence shows that EU membership has brought substantial and tangible benefits to all of Scotland and the UK. It has been the best way to tackle complex challenges such as inequality, climate change and global security, together with our European partners. It has also brought peace to our continent after two world wars. That is why I agree with the European Parliament's president, Martin Schulz, who said at the LSE in London last Friday that the best possible deal with the EU is membership of the EU. He went on to add that any other arrangement necessarily entails trade-offs. Scotland now finds itself in the position of possibly being pulled out of the EU against its democratic will. It is in a position to have to consider imposed trade-offs. My job is to support the First Minister in considering all options in those circumstances. To do so, we first have to gather as much evidence as possible to choose which option best protects Scotland's interests and measure all those options against the five tests outlined by the First Minister. The evidence that we receive will come from policy analysis within the Scottish Government, from the Standing Council in Europe and, of course, our engagement with stakeholders up and down the country. Just yesterday, Keith Brown and I met the Japanese Consul General and Japanese business leaders working in Scotland. The committee is playing a vital and important role in this, of course. Only six days after the vote, you took evidence from my colleague Fiona Hyslop. Since then, you have worked through the summer recess to gather views, issued a wide-ranging call for evidence and published a first report on the impact of Brexit. The Parliament is vital to the whole process, too. It has to assess the impact of the referendum and to consider options. The Scottish Government is therefore holding a series of debates to give members of Parliament the opportunity to discuss the impact on all sectors of Scottish society. The Parliament's devolved powers and to bring forward ideas. I urge all the parties and every member to take part in them. The First Minister has also asked me to meet the party leaders to get their input, and I hope to do so shortly. Convener, let me mention one key issue before I close. Last week's debate in Parliament on the economy highlighted the importance of membership of the single market to Scottish businesses and individuals. Scottish companies depend on the single market for trade, seafood companies depend on common regulatory systems to ensure that their product meets the strict hygiene standards in their key markets in Western Europe. Our engineering exporters can send their goods throughout the single market without any border formalities and source components at the keyness prices in integrated supply chains. Many of our companies, especially in the digital technologies, hospitality, food and drink and engineering, depend heavily on EU labour for skills and knowledge. Those are just a few examples of how membership of the single market is vital to Scotland's prosperity. However, the benefits of membership extend far beyond the economy. To quote Martin Schultz again, it is a community with a shared destiny, a model of society, not an accountant's club. That means that together we share values and solidarity, as well as the economy. Leaving this community of values would have a wide-ranging impact on our society and identity, which we need to consider carefully. Finally, as regards my engagement with the UK Government, you will be aware of the first meeting with the Secretary of State for exiting the EU on 15 September. It was a cordial and detailed meeting that laid the groundwork for discussion. I am happy to explore further with the committee what structures of formal engagement we are trying to put in place. I hope to be able to confirm soon, along with the UK and other devolved administrations, how this engagement will work in practice. A letter that you received at convener yesterday from the First Minister takes the matter and step forward. I hope that this gives you a good overview of my new role. This is, of course, the beginning of an on-going engagement with the committee as events unfold over the coming period. I am therefore looking forward not just to answering your questions today and hearing your thoughts, but to doing so on many future occasions. Can I open by asking if you could elaborate a little bit on your meeting with Mr Davis? For example, did you get any indication as to where the UK Government was in terms of developing its position on its future relationship with the EU? I think that it is clear that the UK Government has indicated publicly that it does not intend to trigger article 50 this year. We are in a period of preparation. That is how I think generously I would describe it. It is also clear that a lot of work is going on in doing sexual analysis, as indeed we are undertaking sexual analysis. I made an offer to David Davis to work jointly with the UK Government on that. The permanent secretary has made that offer to the cabinet secretary. It has not yet been taken up, but I hope that we could do some work together on sexual analysis. I believe that we also have to do geographic analysis, not just Scotland and England, but throughout Scotland there will be a regional and local dimension to the impacts of Brexit. In terms of the detailed policy position, I have to say that I did not get any firm indication, but I think that the conversation confirms what we are all reading and hearing, which is that there is a very strong view that freedom of movement is not acceptable to the current UK Government, a matter that would cause great concern in Scotland. In terms of the structures that you are putting into place with the UK Government, we know that, obviously, there is the GMC, and we have received a letter from the First Minister to say that there is going to be one that takes place in late October. We have taken a variety of evidence from expert witnesses talking about the lack of effectiveness of the GMC in the past. I know that the First Minister herself said that she felt that there needed to be something extra in terms of the intergovernmental machinery to allow Scotland to have the full voice that the Prime Minister promised us when she came to Edinburgh in July. How do you feel about the way the intergovernmental machinery is being built? Is it being built? There is certainly an attempt to build it, and the First Minister's letter reflects the fact that that process is on-going. It has been slower than any—certainly anybody in Scotland would have wished, but it is on-going. I think that we should step back and, as Professor McEwen will have indicated to you, look at the intergovernmental machinery. It is in need of much maintenance and considerable change. There has been a whole range of reports on the intergovernmental machinery ever since devolution took place. Just to look through one or two, the House of Lords Select Committee and the Constitution looked at it last year, the Scottish Parliament Devolution Further Powers Committee looked at it, the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee looked at it, the Institute for Governments looked at it, the Centre for Constitutional Changes looked at it, and all have come to similar conclusions that this is not really fit for purpose. If the GMC structure is to be used, then it has to be reformed and focused, and certainly that is the burden of our discussions, and it certainly was an issue that I raised with David Davis. We have to have a structure that will work and that will allow, I think, two key issues to emerge. One of them would be the way in which there would be an agreement on issues, so the GMC has never worked in that way before. It has been a consensus meeting with an agenda set by the UK Government usually, and the second one is an oversight of what is taking place on the negotiating side. Those two words are important. We need to use those words to describe what we are trying to seek and we are trying to get an effective structure that will work for Scotland. It would be inconceivable, in my view, if major items of devolved competence did not involve the Scottish Government in negotiation. Some of the evidence that we took, for example, from Mr Pound last week, suggested that the devolved Governments were really not going to get the kind of involvement that they had asked for, that they were going to be treated as consultees in the same way as a stakeholder would be treated. How can you ensure or can you ensure that the Scottish Government is not treated just as a consultee but is involved in agreeing the UK's negotiating position, which is what Theresa May promised us in July? Our objective is to secure the full engagement and the full involvement that was promised by the Prime Minister. I am sure that the Prime Minister is a woman of her word. That is what she offered. That is what the Scottish Government wishes to achieve, and that is what we are going into discussion to achieve. I am not sure whether the evidence that we took last week from the Government of Quebec is representative in London, where it talked about during the CETA deal. The provinces of Canada were at the table in negotiating the deal, and that was not part of the Canada's constitution, but it was insisted upon by the EU. What does that tell you about the potential for Scotland in the upcoming negotiations? I was fortunate enough to have a meeting subsequent to your committee with Mr Seaross, and we discussed it in some detail. I think that it is important to recognise, without diminishing that example as a useful one for us, that because of the federal competencies, some trade issues are reserved to the provinces. In order to get the comprehensive deal that the European Union was seeking to get, it had to involve some of the provinces, because otherwise it could not make the deal stick. The federal Government could not negotiate on behalf of those provinces. We do not have exactly the same situation in devolution, of course. Technically, the United Kingdom Parliament is still sovereign in that regard. However, what it does tells us that in a modern democracy there should be the opportunity for that type of participation. Therefore, I hope that the United Kingdom Government is taking to heart that lesson, and I am sure that the EU is looking at it with interest to make sure that they want to see the negotiation discussion involving all those who have an interest. You know that the situation in Belgium with the devolution there, where devolved competencies allow the Belgian devolved administrations to make international agreements and treaties, something incidentally that Gordon Brown referred to in his recent contribution on this matter and said that it is a matter that he expressed to you that it is something that Scotland should have. Those are issues that we need to bring into the discussion. Obviously that we are up against time here. How quickly do you think that you are hopeful of getting an agreement with the UK Government? I get up every morning hoping that we will make progress on this and I am going to go on doing that until we get that progress. You are absolutely right, convener. The clock is ticking and we have to make sure that we get that agreement. It is not just us, of course. There is a Welsh and Northern Irish have to be part of that as well and those discussions involve Welsh and Northern Irish ministers. I have been having discussions on the telephone with individuals and I will continue to do that and we will meet with them, too. It is time to write questions from Stuart McMillan and then Lewis MacDonald. Just in terms of Scotland's options, what do you consider would be a viable option or any viable option available for Scotland to seek a differentiated relationship with the EU? I think that we have to bring our tests that we have to any option. I think that it is far too early to say what that option is. The Parliament asked the Scottish Government to look at the options. Those options are being examined. Clearly, the standing council is deeply involved in that task. I think that you have also had a note from me yesterday of the second meeting of the standing council so that you see the work that is being done. Let us remind ourselves, if we might, about the tests that are important that the First Minister laid out at his speech in the IPPR on 25 July. We have to make sure that our democratic interests are respected. That is a need to make sure that our voices are heard and that our wishes are respected because of the result of the referendum. Our economic interests are safeguarding free movement of labour and access to the single market membership of the single market. Interest in social protection needs to be borne in mind. Our interests in solidarity is the need to recognise the importance of independent nations coming together for the common good and our interests in having influence. That is a particularly important one. For example, if you look at the financial sector, the financial sector looking at its needs and looking, for example, at an EEA model would be concerned that they might have regulation without participation, which, given the nature of the financial sector, would be undesirable for them. Those five tests have to be brought to the table when we are considering any of the options. That is the process that we are engaged in now. One of the things that the EU has managed to do over the years is to be flexible when considering some of the countries and territories. The situation with Isle of Man is that the Isle of Man does not remember the EU, but the Isle of Man is part of the EU VAT area. After the referendum, the Isle of Man is part of the protocol 3 relationship with the EU, which allows free trade and manufactured goods and agricultural products. The EU has got the opportunity to provide flexibility where it has a particular agreement with other countries and territories. That particular example is something that Scotland should consider, particularly with the discussions that it has with the UK Government and any external discussions. The British Irish Council is playing a role in considering some of these matters. Of course, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are members of the BIC. The British Irish Council at its meeting in November will look further at those issues. There is discussion going on, but I would just go back to the five tests. If you look at the example of the Isle of Man, in my mind, it probably would not pass the test of influence. It would not pass the test of social protection. It would not pass the test of democracy. Those are issues for discussion. I think that we should be very open to discussion of a whole range of possible options. We should also be keen to see evidence-led policy. As I said on Tuesday in the parliamentary debate, when we come to this, those who are concerned, those who have worries and those who also come to it with a more positive view need to bring evidence to the table to support their view, and that needs to enter into consideration. There is a huge amount of information flowing about. We have got to have a rational approach to it. That is the five tests. It is the basis of evidence and it is building our understanding of what is also possible. The Italian Prime Minister has a lengthy interview with the BBC today. One of the points that he makes is that it would be unreasonable for any negotiated settlement to give a party who was leaving the EU a better deal than existed even for existing members, let alone others who are outside the EU. I do not think that we should underestimate that position. That is something that is being heard right across Europe. There are people who have existing deals, such as the Norwegians, who might be concerned that a new deal would disadvantage them. It is a very complex process. You mentioned the British Irish Council and the other discussions with the devolved administrations. How are those discussions progressing? The discussion is taking place and there is a common interest to make sure, first of all, that we have a robust machinery for discussion and negotiation within these islands. We have a common interest in securing that. Actually, I think that there is a common interest in the UK Government in securing that. Then, obviously, each of us will bring to the table our particular concerns. In Northern Ireland, there are concerns of the single market and particular concerns with the border and the need for an open border in Northern Ireland. The Welsh will bring different concerns to the table. However, I think that we will all endeavour to work constructively and well. I make it very clear that we are going into that in good faith and we will do that with the devolved administrations of other countries, as we will do it with the UK Government. Finally, what discussions has the Scottish Government had with the Department for International Trade on the preparations that it is undertaking in relation to the negotiation of the UK's position within the world trade organisation? Heathburn has met Liam Fox, I understand, and we are endeavouring to understand the position of the department. It is not perhaps easy to understand that position. If you read Liam Fox's speech to the WTO in Geneva, it is a bit confusing. We continue to endeavour to understand the position. Richard Lochhead made a contribution to the debate on Monday about the customs union, which should be borne in mind. That is an issue that is not much talked about, but it is very important. Following on from some of the debate that we had earlier this week on the rural economy, but raising some wider questions, I was very struck by the fact that the Government's approach in the last couple of weeks has been focused on membership of the single market, and that phrase was used very specifically. As we discussed on Tuesday, membership of the single market is contrary to what has been said by some, a substantial or real thing. Membership of the single market comprises the 28 members of the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. That is a membership organisation with specific rules and specific exclusions. The question that I put to you on Tuesday, which I would be interested in, is what is the developing view of the Scottish Government about membership of the single market, because it does not include, for example, agricultural products or agricultural policies, nor does it include fisheries, nor does it include customs, nor does it prevent Norway, for example, from external trade negotiations. The position of saying that the Department of International Trade is saying that we need to work within world trade organisations' rules is correct, and it is perfectly possible to be a member of the single market and to negotiate your own trade rules with third parties. It would be very interesting to know what the Government's view is on both the opportunities but also the limitations of the single market. The EEA comprises sovereign states, so there is an issue in there at the very start of the matter. That might not be an insuperable issue, but it is an issue in there. It really is too early to say where that lies in the spectrum of options, because we do not know the UK Government's view of what that might be. As I said to you, and I thought it was a very good question, and I repeat that. It is important that that is the type of question that we need to consider. There are elements of the Scottish debate—the fishing element, for example—who might find EEA membership to be very acceptable, except that it might not assist them in exporting their products. Therefore, it might be a mixed blessing to them, because it does, as you say, exclude fisheries and agriculture. There are others in the financial sector who might find us less than optimum because they would not participate in the regulatory structure. Some prefer the EEA model to a Swiss model because it is dynamic, because it changes with the EEA. Whereas a Swiss model consists of 100—I cannot remember the exact number of treaties that all have to be updated constantly. There are a huge number of officials flying in the air all the time, building up these treaties. There are advantages to it and there are disadvantages to it. That is the type of work that is being undertaken to examine that, to talk to experts on it, to listen to people who know the system. That is, of course, all taking place. A wide variety of conversations and a great deal of reading is taking place. During the process of negotiation within these islands, that will clearly be a matter that needs to be looked at closely. A lot would depend upon the position that the UK Government took on that in its negotiations when they start with the EU, because the article 15 negotiations deal not simply with exit, but with framework. However, there would also be others to be consulted. You would have to join EFTA. The EFTA members would have to accept, for example, a UK membership, and then they would then have to be a discussion with the EU to move into EEA membership. We should also remember that EEA membership was designed for that has not always been a halfway house on the way into the EU. It has not been used. Sometimes it has become a static halfway house, but it has never been designed for people on their way out. That is another issue to be borne in mind. There is a great deal to be discussed and this committee will be an important part of that discussion, but we are very long way from a conclusion on that. One of the limiting factors in this discussion presently is that we do not actually know anything about the UK Government's view on this. We can discern from the language on a free movement of Labour that membership of the single market, whether or not David Davis has slapped down by Theresa May for saying it, is probably not on the table for them, but it is something that should be on the table for us. I would stress that. This is negotiation and discussion. We therefore have to come to the table with what we believe to be the things that are in our best interests and to discuss them. There is no doubt in my mind and certainly no doubt in the minds of my colleagues that full membership of the single market is short of being a member of the EU is the best option. I have given some examples there, but there are many other examples that we can talk about. That is a very helpful answer, but I think that I am implicit in it, particularly in what you said there at the end, is the suggestion that the Scottish Government's view is that it is possible to be a member of the single market without being a member of the European Economic Area. I am keen to understand that European Economic Area, as you say, was originally a product of EFTA, but countries like Iceland and Norway have no active intention to turn membership of EFTA into membership of the European Union, so it is a standing arrangement. I would like to understand whether it is possible for either the United Kingdom as a whole or part of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland, to have a different relationship with the single market that could be described as membership other than membership of the EU. That appears to be the view—insofar as one can—I keep using the word discern it. Insofar as one can discern it from the UK Government, that appears to be their view. Many people do not believe that to be possible, but I would stress something that Stuart McMillan said. There is a flexibility in arrangements that we have seen over the years in the negotiation of the EU, and that may be possible. I am not pouring any cold water on it, but I think that we are in the realms of degrees of probability. The degree of probability on that is probably quite limited, but we do not know. It is quite important to say in these discussions time to time that we are unaware at the present moment of what the UK is positioned on this. If, as appears to be the case—and this was clear from the Vidigrad group after the Bratislava summit—that free movement is an absolute sine qua non, then it would not, in my view, be likely that the UK would have anything to do with it. There is discussion of free movement. I notice again today discussion of free movement within sectors. I think that that becomes very, very strange because you are talking about free movement for bankers. I think that there would be some resistance, even in the Conservative Party, to that being a negotiated settlement. The Swiss, of course, are trying to negotiate on free movement on the basis of job offers. Given their referendum outcome and again, that has not been accepted as yet. Can I take it from that, finally, that you have hopefully provided a note of the meeting, but one that does not contain a great deal of detail and I understand why that is the case at this juncture? Can I take it that you have not ruled out or come to a view on the variety of possible ways of maintaining membership or access to Singapore? That is absolutely correct. It is early days to do that, but the clock is ticking. I bring in Rachel Hamilton. The Treasury has guaranteed to back EU-funded projects signed before this year's forthcoming autumn statement. Agricultural funding, currently provided by the EU, will also continue until 2020. That is given reassurance to farmers and crofters. However, thinking about Scotland specifically, how can the Scottish Government give reassurance to Scottish farmers in areas that are devolved with regard to agricultural funding, in particular pillar 1 funding? Insofar as we are able to do so, we do so on the basis of the financial guarantee. There has to be a financial guarantee, otherwise it could not be done. I would be very happy to give that reassurance in a permanent way by saying that we are going to stay. That would be the ultimate reassurance. However, because we cannot do that, we give the reassurance in the financial way. What worries me is not the reassurance that has been given at the present moment, it is what has not been given. I will give you a concrete example. Pillar 2 reassurance has not been given. There is considerable concern for out Scotland to be in the south of Scotland for youth, certainly in Argyll and Bute for me, about leader funding and the pressure on leader funding and the fact that now, if you have not got an application in that is likely to be ready to be approved before the autumn statement, you are not going to get it. That money supports our rural areas. Indeed, in Scotland, a lower amount of money than we should have had in the EU negotiations, which Mr Lockhead can give you the chapter and verse on, as I can, because together we were involved in that in 2007, when the pillar 2 was being negotiated. In those circumstances, we have an enormous pending problem in rural Scotland where a great deal of good work being done in rural development, vitally good work, will not take place. I would like to be able to guarantee all those things, but we need the reassurance from the Treasury that we can do that. Unless we get that reassurance, it simply cannot happen. Now, in terms of stability of policy, I am very happy when we are planning to talk in detail to the NFU, we will talk to other farmers, we will talk to the Crofters Union, we will have those conversations and we will do, as we are doing across every sector, offer every guarantee we can, but we cannot do it without money and therefore the money guarantee has to come from the Treasury. And so what messages will you take to the UK Government when you next meet and discuss the reassurances that you want to give to the Scottish agricultural industry? For heaven's sake, be sensible, realise the risks within this matter, don't go around whistling in the dark, which has been a tendency unfortunately, and say put the money on the table and help us to make the guarantees that we want to make. That would be my message and if you would like to take that to your colleagues in London, I would be very grateful. On the issue of funding guarantees, when will the Scottish Government be able to guarantee the funding status for EU students for the years 2017-18 and 18-19? In the education committee, there were concerns raised by the sector about the level of uncertainty here. As it is an area of devolve confidence, it is one that we can give assurances from here. Obviously, that is a matter that is under active consideration. I can't say any more than that. John Swinney is the person who will, in the end, be able to make that decision. Clearly, it is a decision for him. We were able to do it for this year. Obviously, we would want to see what was possible, but I can't give you a definitive answer at this stage. Emma Harper Thank you, convener. There has been talk about access to the free market versus membership off, and Lewis MacDonald has identified that as well. I have had many constituents ask me what is the difference, and there is all the terminology going round with EEF, WTO options and things like that. Can you maybe define that a little bit for us? Yes. We have to demystify this whole business. It is a very complex business, and it is full of acronyms of one sort or another. Somebody described it to me the other day as trying to play three-dimensional chess inside a Rubik's Cube. It is a very complex business. We have to say some simple things to people. The first simple thing to have to say is that Scotland voted to stay, and that was a sensible decision. Economically, this is a very risky set of propositions, and it is not enough simply to go out and say that everything is going to be fine. There is no proof of that. Secondly, we need to explain to people that, in order to continue to benefit from—and we should be quite honest that we have benefited from membership of the EU—this has been a beneficial activity. In order to continue to benefit from it, there are some things that Europe insists that we do. Those things are about having a fair system of fair trade, fair competition. Obviously, it is unfair if you can undercut people on labour costs and social protections, so there is a fairness across Europe, and that is what the single market really is. It is taking down the barriers to competition, and it is saying that this is a fair competition. That is why sometimes a regulatory burden appears. It is about making sure that fairness is observed. I hope that individual MSPs are engaging with, as they are, their communities, their constituencies, their regions, their stakeholders and simplifying their message, but they are listening too. We should all be listening to those who say that we have problems and those who say that we have possibilities. I am very happy to hear evidence-based cases that say that this is what we should do next. It may well be useful for—well, this committee is looking at information flow, and there is now a spice information bulletin. It may well be that we should find a way to provide some information that MSPs could use in their regions and constituencies, and I will be happy to look at that. We will take that away and look at it if that is helpful and see whether we could provide you with some information that could help you to do that. In addition, it looks like—are we potentially heading for a hard Brexit? I know that people are talking about that. Are all those negotiations going to affect our ease of access to the markets, and are we heading for a world trade option for—how does that impact Scotland? Insofar as we understand what the world trade option is, insofar as we understand it, it is perhaps slightly better than the Secretary of State for Trade, it is immensely problematic. You have a far larger number of people to deal with, many of whom could create difficulties about any aspect of trade. That could be a nightmare of negotiation. It is not correct to say that you would simply passport all your existing tariffs into the new situation. Those tariffs are not simply a list of percentages, but they are also, in many cases, based on the quantum of the European market. You would have to work out the quantum and how much you were taking away and how much you were going to allow. It is immensely complicated. The discussion of hard and soft Brexit is sometimes misleading. It implies that there is, at one end of the spectrum, people who are actively working for the softest of landings. At the other end of the spectrum, people are working for the hardest of landings. I do not see in the UK Government these people working for the softest of landings. I think that it is incumbent upon us and others to argue the strong case of the signal market, for example, because I do not hear it being articulated within the UK Government. I think that within the UK Government, the discussion is about the degree of hardness. In our away day at Strathclyde University, we had a briefing from David Wilson, who is formerly of the Scottish Government and is now an academic at Strathclyde University. One of the issues that he pointed out to us about future trading relationships was that discussions about future trading relationships, informal discussions about future trading relationships and, indeed, when we move there with the third party countries, will be conducted without any Scottish input whatsoever, because trade is a reserved issue. How on earth can we protect Scotland's interests of Scottish sectors in these trade negotiations when we are nowhere near the table? Well, let's start from where we are. We're negotiating where the table is and what presence we have at it. I think that it would be wrong to say at this stage that that's what's going to happen. That would be a warning about what might happen, but I think that we should be very aware of that. We should apply the five tests to all the options and implying the five tests to that option, where we would accept a position in which we had no involvement, would fail democratic, economic, social protection, solidarity and influence tests, so it would be unacceptable to us in its entirety. We would have to make that very clear and negotiate on that basis. Something, for example, that Keith Brown would have been saying when he met Liam Fox? Indeed, and it's something I will be saying on I'm sure on many future occasions. We have to be very clear how devolution, even devolution as we have it now, changes the way that things are done. If this Brexit had taken place before 1999, before 1997, there would have been no structure in which Scotland's voice could have been heard apart from the existence of the Secretary of State. There is a formal devolved structure, which has been empowered on three more occasions since devolution was established. This is a dynamic process of devolution, and we have to be in there, arguing very strongly that our voice is not just to be heard, we are part of the process of negotiating this. It just strikes me that the people you are negotiating with, do they understand that? For example, David Davis, I believe the last time he was in government, was with John Major's government, pre-devolution. Similarly, Liam Fox was actually against devolution, and Boris Johnson has never been seen as particularly friend of Scotland, either. Are you dealing with people who, perhaps even in conservative terms, aren't quite up to speed with the devolution settlement? Do you think that that's a fair comment? I think that it's a fair comment. There are people sitting in this Parliament who are against devolution, so the leopard can change its spots. In addition, I'm sure that the full information weight of the civil service is being brought to bear on briefing ministers, which is often a formidable machine, to tell them about the reality of devolution. Of course, it is my job. It is the job of ministers in the Welsh Assembly, it's the job of Northern Irish ministers to make it very clear to the UK Government ministers the reality of devolution. There are other elements in this, too. The voice of Gibraltar needs to be heard, the voice of London needs to be heard. There are counterweights to the UK Government and substantial counterweights to the UK Government. There are similar things to the things that we are saying. Thank you very much, Richard Lochhead. Good morning to Michael Russell and Frank Strang, two people that I worked very closely with for many years. Of course, I'll be very friendly in terms of my questions today. I just want to pick up on Emma Harper's theme of clearing up some of the confusion and demystifying the whole debate around the potential impact for Scotland of being outside of the EU. At the same time, I returned to Michael Russell's reference to the debate earlier this week, where I raised the issue of the customs union. I think that I heard Lewis MacDonald say that you can be in the single market, but not necessarily in the customs union. He's nodding. Therefore, the debate has largely been around the single market, but it's not the case that the real economic impact for many businesses in Scotland would come from leaving the customs union. Therefore, that has to be much more prominent in the debate over the potential consequences for Scotland. That's my first question. I agree. To pay tribute to Richard Lochhead, he knows more about European negotiation than anybody else in this room and has more experience of it. I think that his point is an absolutely accurate one. The absence of a customs union would be more problematic for most Scottish businesses than anything else. I won't say more problematic than the lack of existence of the single market, because I think that there are whole sectors for whom the single market is absolutely vital, but the customs union will impinge upon any business or organisation. Yes, I think that's true, but to follow up on Emma Harper's point, if we're going to demystify this, we have to do it as well as we can. It's hard enough to explain why the single market is important, but you get into the customs union and it becomes sometimes Byzantine in its complexity. You're right, and we need to find a way to do it. Is it also the case that if Liam Foxx is globetrotting trying to investigate whether or not other trade agreements are possible with non-EU countries, he's therefore ruling out being part of the customs union, because you can't both allow the EU to negotiate with third parties, but at the same time have bilateral negotiations with third parties around the world. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the UK Government is heading for hard Brexit and to leave the customs union. You're right. Indeed, the existence of his department tells you, unless the department was set up without the full knowledge of the implication that they are not interested in the customs union, because you can't have a department of world trade if you're in an existing customs union that has a set of agreed tariffs. It just can't be done. We are at present moment trying to read the runes of the situation without knowing precisely what the United Kingdom Government wants to do, but those runes would indicate exactly what you're saying. I just think that it would be really good if the Scottish Government could look at the potential impact, look at the tariffs, the import costs that other countries put in place in terms of exports from the UK. I'm told, for instance, that Brazil has a 17 per cent tariff on the import of Scotch whisky. I read that somewhere, so I don't know if it's exactly the case, but we have to understand what the examples are around the world of potential tariffs and understand that leaving the customs union will have a heavy cost for Scottish business, so we can convey that message directly to Scottish business. There is work being done on that, and I'm happy to confirm that. There is an economic subgroup of the Standing Council. There are a number of subgroups of the Standing Council. That features very largely in their work, and indeed I had a conversation yesterday evening with a senior European official about some of those matters. The next question is okay, just one more. Clearly, it is one thing having transparency over the negotiations and a promise to involve the devolved administrations, where there will be recorded meetings, albeit the minutes may not be made public, because it will be between the devolved administrations and the UK Government that perhaps take place every few weeks or a month or whatever may be agreed. Then there is the real negotiations that actually take place at different levels within the European Union that will be taking place between the UK Government and the European Union. Some of those negotiations will be formal and some will be informal. Given that we have just seen the UK fishing minister, George Eustace, say publicly that he could foresee fishing being a good bargaining chip for those negotiations, which would have impact in Scotland, given that we have two thirds of the fishing industry. How on earth are we going to be able to be in the loop in terms of all the informal negotiations and technical negotiations and the negotiations at official levels that take place between the UK and the EU? You know the system well. I remember many arguments that you had with your colleagues in the UK about access to lunches, access to events that were taking place. I remember all that happening. We will be very aware of that. I cannot give you a guarantee that we are going to be in every room, obviously, because we cannot do that. We are aware of the problem that you raised. We are also aware of the problem that you raised that, once you establish a structure, very often it begins to get eroded around the edges by that sort of thing. The structure has to not only be a formal structure within a reformed GMC structure, but it has to be a strong informal structure and a strong official supporting structure. It is fair to say that the official contact has been very detailed in recent weeks and will continue to be so. I think that we also have to keep our eyes very, very wide open about what is taking place. We do not want to be naive, Frank. I will just add that there are loads of different ways of achieving that. The important point is the full involvement commitment from the Prime Minister. We need to extend that beyond the article 50 triggering, and we need to think beyond just that letter of triggering as to exactly how the negotiations in practice will work. I just come in on a supplementary, and I understand that they are being set up. As well as the GMC, there is the GMC for officials. Are Scottish civil servants going to be involved in those working groups? One of the principles of GMC is that it is a joint secretariat to make it work. Those official discussions are preparing the way for the ministerial discussions, so they are part of the same thing. We are already preparing the way for the conversation that the First Minister mentioned in her letter. There is a GMC-E, which is the GMC Europe. Is there going to be a GMC-B for Brexit? The detailed discussion has been to ensure that there is an understanding of whatever it is called, and however it operates, it operates in a way that is favourable to agreement and oversight. It is not simply a rubber stamp. I did tell David Davis a story that I am happy to tell you that, on one occasion, when I was a member of the GMC-E, I attended and Richard Lockhead will recognise this type of thing. There were 21 UK ministers present, myself and the Welsh First Minister. It was not exactly an even discussion taking place. We need to ensure that the structure does not err in that direction. Will you be insisting on being involved in both reserved matters and devolved matters? You mentioned devolved matters earlier, but if we look at the First Minister's five tests, social protection, for example, covers lots of areas that are reserved, so will you be asking for involvement? I find the tests to every item that is discussed, but I do not think that from the evidence that you took last week, it is clear, that if you were to look at a scenario in which more powers accrue to the Scottish Parliament as a result of this, those would not necessarily solely be in present devolved areas. There are examples in other parts of the world where other powers exist, so our interests, while it will be first and foremost in protecting Scotland's interests in its present devolved competencies, will not solely be in that. You started having that discussion. Have you warned them that this is where this post-sacred leads? I am not sure that warning people is the best start to negotiation. Advise them, then. I certainly think that we have made it clear that where our interests lie, and we will continue to do so. I want to follow the line of questioning around the customs union a little bit, because I think that that comes back to the issues that I had asked earlier. I think that you said to Richard Lochhead that explaining the customs union and its implications was terribly byzantine and more difficult than you mentioned earlier. I think that there are 120 bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the European Union on trading matters. The information. You should not do your committee advisor out of a job, however. I certainly would not want to do that. However, in addition to those many bilateral relationships that Switzerland has, clearly Norway and Iceland, as they are out with the customs union, they also have additional agreements and economic pressures. Some would say, for example, that the Norwegian seafood industry has largely relocated to Scotland in order to be within the customs union provided by the European Union, and that is clearly an economic benefit that we would want to retain. I wonder, though, if I can come back to my earlier question about whether the single market is the sole focus of the Scottish Government's attention, or whether, indeed, you all again appear to imply that the customs union, as well as being more difficult to explain, might be, in some respects, more important. No, I wouldn't give you a hierarchy of those things. I wouldn't want to give the impression that the single market is a sole focus of attention. However, I have emphasised the importance of the single market, and I think that I should also rightly emphasise the importance of the customs union. These are the existing fabric of our relationships. These are what allow us to operate within the European Union. They are what we present to the world in terms of our trading and other relationships. It is very, very problematic to redraw those. Nobody, I don't think even the most enthusiastic Brexit here would deny it, will be problematic to redraw those, and it is right that we point that out. It is also right that we look at alternatives as we believe they exist and how they present themselves to us. However, I don't think that when we are positioned, we can apply the five tests, we can understand the situation, but I don't think that we are positioned to draw conclusions on that as yet. Would it then be fair to say—or not fair—that I am open to either answer in a sense. While you rightly criticised the UK Government for being very unclear about its objectives, would it be fair to say that you are yet at an early stage in terms of drawing up what the Scottish Government's objectives are in those discussions with UK ministers? I think that we are much clearer about what we want to see. I don't think that there is any dubiety about what we want to see, so I don't think that we lack clarity. Certainly, developing those positions in detail is the work of the moment, and that's what's going on. We don't see any clarity from the UK Government. David Davies says one day that it's not likely that we'll put a single market and then he is slapped down. Boris Johnson makes an extraordinary remark that trading relationships will be fine because we drink 300 million bottles of Prosecco, and somebody else then doesn't deny the figure, but denies the assertion. It's all very confusing. We are clear—we think that the best solution would be to remain. We are clear that the single market is extremely important to us. We've explained in detail why that is. I've given you further examples here today. We are absolutely clear that the absence of a customs union would be problematic. I have also spoken in each of the debates about the sectoral interests. We talked about problems and issues in rural economy. I'm very much looking forward to getting on to higher education, an area that I know particularly well, and on to the environment, which is very, very close to my heart. I think that in both of those areas it is very important that we talk in detail about it. Gail Ross contributed to the debate on Tuesday with some very important information about the impact, the higher education research impact within her constituency. I can do that in my constituency, but the Scottish Government will do it across Scotland. All those things are within our purview, and we are talking about them. If you look at Horizon 2020, for example, there are countries that contribute to Horizon 2020 by paying into the pot. That might be an option, but that does not take care of a whole range of issues to do with free movement of labour, which is vital as important for higher education as for any other sector within our economy. We have those things to talk about. We are being clear. We are developing that position. We are talking about our principles. I would love to see those principles articulated by the UK Government, but we are talking about our principles. We are preparing our position on the negotiating machinery and urging others to move as fast as we are moving. I do not think that we are failing to articulate what we are doing. The First Minister has been very clear over the summer when others have said nothing. In terms of reaching conclusions on those options, clearly that is what you have described as work that is on going at the moment. One of the issues that has been raised in the committee is the capacity of both the UK Government to negotiate international trade, but also the capacity of the Scottish Government to support the work that you have described. The conveners had to reply this week from the head of the Department of External Affairs explaining what the staffing complement of that department is, but that those staff are also supporting the First Minister, Fiona Hyslop, Alasdrail and herself, and working with other departments. Do you feel that you have the capacity in place to develop deliverable options from the complex of issues that you have described today? I will last rank say whether to about this in a minute. He is at the sharp end of it, but it is very true that the people working with me are also working on a wider sphere. I think that is very helpful. From the very beginning, I have seen my job as not building an empire or a department, but building a team and a team that can support the negotiations that we are going to undertake, so it is flexible. A lot of the people that I talk to on a regular basis are involved in other parts of the Scottish Government's work and that is their strength because they have the expertise in those areas that we need to draw on. The smaller and more flexible team that we have been working and building will have that capability but we are open to bringing people in as we need them. We are also getting a lot of help from the Standing Council, a lot of help from organisations and individuals who want to talk. I am involved in a detailed series of meetings with all sorts of people who want to sit down and talk about what they can bring to the table and how they can help or what they think about. Even at my constituency surgeries, I see people who want to come along and talk about this. I think that there is an enormous engagement and I think that the resources of Scotland are being used efficiently and effectively to do so, but Frank is at the sharp end of it. I will add a little bit to what we said at the away day when we had a discussion in the summer. There are lots of unknowns on all of this but what we do know is that it is pretty serious for Scotland and that we need to take it very seriously. I talked to you before about how within our part of the Scottish Government there has been a directorate that the time part of is now focused entirely on external affairs as opposed to having culture and other aspects to it, how the team has increased to the number of 56s that you have or people who are actually focusing on external affairs matters within Scotland and does not include people overseas there are as well. The number is increasing. I would say that new functions like a really important function around demystifying the intelligence and briefing function alongside spy is trying to get the information, a function obviously around supporting the standing council because the standing council can only operate if it is very well supported and then an important function around project management because this is a big project and needs to be very well coordinated. Those are the kind of growing functions, I would say, but the very important point, as the minister said, is that we are doing it with others and it has to be the whole Government effort, particularly alongside our UK relations colleagues because that is where the action is as we have discussed in negotiations with the UK but we have also put in place governance structures to make sure that the whole organisation is part of this. As a cabinet sub-committee, you will know a project board to make sure that we have good governance and, very importantly, engagement with all those parts of the Government, the directorates in informal way on policy as to how we can equip them to do their business which will ever stake holders that are out there who need to be part of the story, so it is a big team effort. There is a visible sign of that in the debates that we are having. Cabinet Secretary, you are leading me summing up, working with each of the cabinet secretaries and with all the other ministers. Last Wednesday, I did a stakeholder event on energy with Paul Wheelhouse. I have done a recent event with Fergus Ewing. We have had the debates. Those are moving on. I have got engagements in Brussels with Fiona Hyslop in October. There is a whole range of events going on. It is a collaborative activity between ministers and across the civil service. As a sub-committee to that, you mentioned higher education. This committee has had a call for evidence. Obviously, educational organisations have responded and we have also taken oral evidence from them. Obviously, it is an absolutely key sector that is affected by this. How specifically are you going to represent their interests in your negotiations with the UK Government? With vigor, I have to say. It is important that the higher education sector in Scotland speaks with a united voice, and I think that they will. Like all sectors, I think that they have to be very clear about what the impact is upon them and be prepared to articulate that. I think that they have to look at the ways and the things that they need in order to minimise the potential damage that will be done. One of the differentiations that I drew yesterday when speaking to Japanese businesses about this was this one. I think that it is quite important in every sector. You can talk about the positive benefits. I am happy to hear that evidence exists, and if that evidence exists, we can assist people with the positive benefits. We will do so. There is no doubt about that. The minimum that we can do for others is to try and make sure that they are not disadvantaged. That is probably the first objective, to find means by which that can happen. It may be very difficult in some areas. Only then might we be able to see if there are other things that can be done to assist them. We are applying that matrix everywhere, and we will apply it to higher education. However, higher education needs to be very clear about what it believes will happen and what resolution to it it wishes to have. I am having those discussions with a range of people that I know within the sector. Thank you very much. I think that we have a supplementary from Rachel Hamilton, do we? Well, it is not a supplementary convener, but it is about devolved competencies. Professor Michael Keating, I have elevated your status, has been able to guide us through or trying to guide us through. EU law will cease to apply in Scotland and the rest of the UK, subject to the terms of our future relationship with EU. The Scotland Act 1998, as amended in 2012-16, gives the Scottish ministers powers to make legislation in areas of devolved competencies. It appears that EU legislation works for Scotland in some ways and not in others. I was wondering how you were going to go about starting to unpick the legislative competencies that we currently have in the best interest of Scotland and possibly shadow some of the EU legislation that we currently works for us. That is an example of real and concrete differentiation. There is a different legal system in Scotland, so whatever happens, there will be a differentiated solution on this issue. Those who are looking at differentiated solutions might want to start thinking about that. We know from the initial response from the faculty of advocates that they are very concerned about the capability of the Scottish institutions to re-transpose the legislation, to take this massive legislation and to bring it back home. Some of those things you could not do that with. You are not going to take the common agricultural payment system and simply say that we are carrying on with it because that would be impossible. You will have to have a new set of rules and regulations. Other things you can certainly assume that for a period of time we would continue to have those in place until we got round to unpicking them. If we were to set the task today for every member of this committee to look through the statutes and work out how we would deal with each one, we would not be finished within the two years of article 50. We are going to have to take as read quite a lot of information and prioritise the changes that we bring about. That is going to be a big burden on the Scottish legal system and it is going to be a big burden on this Parliament. One of the things that we should start to think about is the way to get to that stage. We are not saying that we will get to that stage, but the way to get to that stage might be a huge legislative burden to be dealt with by a Parliament of 129 members. On previous occasions there have been two justice committees in this Parliament because too much legislation was going through. I think that you have not seen anything yet. Scoping that is the first issue, working out how it can be done and then prioritising what is going to be done. Acknowledging that is a differentiated solution and the solution that will apply south of the border will not be the solution that applies here because of the differences in Scotland. When the First Minister was before the committee a couple of weeks ago, she said that the Scottish Government was paying very close attention to the various legal challenges in terms of the triggering of article 50 and the involvement of Parliament. I am not sure whether you are aware of the skeleton argument presented by the claimants challenging the Government's ability to trigger article 50. It has been analysed by our advisor, Shona Douglas Scott, and that analysis is on the committee's website today. Basically, she outlines how the skeleton argument of the claimants is based on the devolution settlement and indeed the act of union because the argument is that leaving the EU will affect Scotland's private law and private law is protected by the act of union. I wondered if you had had the opportunity to reflect on that. I echo what the First Minister says. We are keeping a close eye on the legal proceedings that are taking place both in London and in Belfast. It is important that we understand them as they proceed. The Scottish Government is, I think, sympathetic to the view—very sympathetic to the view—that there should be a parliamentary process and that the prerogative should not be used. I think that that would gain widespread support across the Parliament, but we will obviously consider at each stage of the proceedings what our appropriate reaction is. At the moment, that is all that we are able to do, but it will be a developing situation. You will want to ask me or the First Minister that question again as the cases proceed. Finally, you will be aware that it has been raised in debates on several occasions by Conservative members of the committee on some of the evidence that we took in Brussels and the advice that we were given relating to Scotland's ability to speak to EU institutions as the process continues. The advice that we were given, which has been repeated by several Conservative members, is that if we act in good faith in our negotiations with the UK Government and the UK Government indicates to Europe that they are happy with us to have our own discussions, then it can go ahead. However, the shutters will come down, I think, with the phrase if it was seen that we didn't have the UK Government's permission, if you like, to speak directly to Europe. My reflection, and I think that I raised this publicly, is that surely the impetus is now on the UK Government to say, yes, you have acted in good faith, you can go ahead and have those direct discussions with Europe about possibilities for Scotland's differentiated relationship. Do you see any possibility of the UK Government giving that indication to Europe? I can only say that I am entering into those negotiations on behalf of the Scottish Government in good faith. I hope that they understand that. I hope that their judgment is sound and that they can see that. In those circumstances, I cannot imagine that there is any problem. I do think that it is perhaps slightly overexaggerating the influence of the UK Government to say that whenever they say to a shutter in Europe come down, it comes down. However, the reality is that the Scottish Government is entering into these discussions in good faith. I hope that you have seen today that a great deal of hard work is being done by officials, by volunteers, by people contributing across the board, and that we are going in intending to get the best deal for Scotland. I hope that message gets to the UK Government, and I certainly hope that it gets across Europe. Indeed, it is a message even more widely than that. Thank you very much, Mr Russell and Mr Strang. We will now have a short suspension before we move to the next item of business. Welcome back to the European and External Relations Committee. Given that there has been a short delay, the ambassador of Slovakia has been slightly delayed. Therefore, I would like to ask members' agreement to take item 3 ahead of item 2. Are we agreed on that? I agree. Thank you. Item 3 is consideration of EU strategy. In light of the EU referendum result, I wrote to conveners of other committees seeking their views on updating the EU strategy and the role of the Parliament's EU reporters. Clerks have prepared some background information, including a list of EU reporters who have been appointed to date, and the responses received thus far from the conveners of other committees as to their approach to this whole subject. You will see that, in paragraph 8 of paper 4, the clerks have set out some proposals for strengthening the EU strategy of the Parliament and developing the role of reporters. We are seeking members' agreement on some of the suggestions that the clerks have put forward. Would anyone like to go first? In the last session, I was an EU reporter for the local government and regeneration committee. The thing that I found about the role was that, depending on the importance that each committee placed on the role of the EU reporter, it determined how active the role of the EU reporter was. As well as the genuine interest that the individual who was the EU reporter had. I personally thought that the role of the EU reporter was useful. I thought that it was helpful. I tried to use that position to help to further engage the local government regeneration committee with EU issues. I think that it is a role that is very important. I think that it has been under thought of in the past session. I would generally recommend that anyone who becomes a EU reporter in any of the committees fully engages with the role. I am happy to see that the role is beefed up. On the responses from the various committee conveners, there seems to be an understanding across the committees that the role of the EU reporter needs to change and that the implications of leaving the EU should really be part of that role. It could be common sense, right? Lewis, do you want to come in on that? I think that it is a useful exercise to have undertaken. I think that the proposal makes good sense. It is striking that one committee is even appointed to reporters, which I think is a measure of understanding across the Parliament that this is going to be important across portfolios. I think that my approach is in the paper. Emma Harper? I just noticed that on page 7, on Annex C, Mike Rumbles listed as a rural economy reporter. Was that approved? Was that finaled? I do not know. That would be a matter for the committee. That is what they have told us. I think that, in terms of the committee's work, the response across the Parliament to the process of leaving the EU would be useful to have reporters who could liaise with the committee to keep us fully updated, because other committees have legislative scrutiny and have quite a burden of work. Some of them are taking on more scrutiny than other committees, in terms of Brexit. I was quite pleased to see, for example, that the local government committee is going to get local authorities in to give evidence. That would be useful. I am looking forward to seeing what they come back with. I believe that the economy committee has plans as well to take forward a particular body of work. Having the opportunity to liaise with the reporters will be useful for keeping up to speed with what is happening across all the committees. I think that it might be useful not to add to the burden of our workload, which seems to be increasing on a weekly basis. It might be useful to have even one informal meeting with the EU reporters when they are all in place, so that we can have that kind of general discussion with them and to hear issues that they have and want to bring to the table. Then, after that, we might have some type of regular dialogue with them on a more formal basis. I think that I was certainly planning as convener to do that, but if other members wished to participate, I know that members' times under great deal of pressure, but I do not know if other members wanted to do that. I will certainly keep up that dialogue as convener. Okay, so are we agreed on the proposals laid out in the paper? We will have another short suspension until the next item of business. Thank you. 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 would like to welcome to the meeting his Excellency Lubomet Rahack. Good morning. Before I move to members' questions, I would like to give the ambassador the opportunity to make some opening remarks. Thank you, convener and members of the Scottish Parliament. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure and honour to join you here today in sharing with you priorities of the Slovak presidency of the Council of the European Union, highly estimating by this the mission of parliaments in keeping contact dialogue of executive power with citizens. The role of the parliaments in the EU policy has increased significantly after Lisbon Treaty has been adopted. Interparliamentary cooperation is also a key ingredient of a countable European Union. Few words about my country, because after 12 years of EU membership Slovakia is honoured to lead the union this semester, and the presidency is really a milestone for us. Now we really have a good story to tell, a story that began by dream of our peoples to return to free and democratic world, a story that continued by our integration into the European family of nations, a family we are bound with by rich history, diverse cultures and common values. Indeed, back to Europe was once one of the velvet revolution's principle credos in Czechoslovakia in 1989, and it was a voice of our European identity. We are proud to call the EU, our home, the euro, our currency and the Schengen, our area. The EU provides us with security, stability and prosperity, and we are grateful for that, because we have been given a lot and we do our best to contribute to common success of the European project. The consequences of the United Kingdom's referendum will obviously dominate the EU agenda in the coming months and years. While EU member states express their regret about the outcome of the referendum, there is a vital interest to have UK as a close partner of the EU after its separation. Here I would like to express my personal appreciation of the Scottish people able to recognise the positive sides of the European Union, despite of enormous anti-European attacks during the referendum campaign. I understand many of you will be interested in hearing from me more than I can tell you in this regard. I believe you will understand that it is not for ambassadors as civil servants to comment political choices of hosting state or provide political guidance on behalf of his country. Let me therefore just recall certain principles that have been agreed at the June informal meeting of EU 27, which remain valid. The basic principle is that article 50 of the EU treaty that provides the legal basis for the UK's withdrawal from the EU is the main principle and is up to British government to notify the European Council of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU and that there should be no negotiations prior UK's notification of this fact. We also understand the political message that Brexit means, Brexit, which is that the UK government wishes to proceed with the implementation of the referendum result, so it will not trigger article 50 before the end of this year. This also means it will not be triggered during the Slovak presidency and explain why I cannot go much further to avoid overstepping the mandate of Slovak presidency of the council. At the same time, there is no intention on the EU side to prolong artificially these processes. On the contrary, in the interest of reducing uncertainty and further economic damage, there is willingness to proceed expeditiously. British and European citizens deserve to know what exactly does Brexit mean for their lives and any artificial prolongation of uncertainty will create space for further disinformation, political destabilisation, social and even xenophobic tensions and economic problems on both sides. In the meantime, the EU member states cannot stand idle. Self-reflection has become a must, not an option. Vox Populi expressed in British referendum has been clearly heard, reflecting worries of many Europeans, not only British. The Bracislava in former EU 27 summit held on 16 September was a first step in this regard. The aim of the summit was to diagnose the present state of the union facing withdrawal of one of its most important members and to discuss the approach to our common future beyond Brexit. Three key areas have been defined in the Bracislava road map where significant process needs to be made urgently. The first is migration and external borders. Second is security, both internal and external. And third is economic and social development and problems of youth. It has also been agreed that Bracislava is just the beginning of this reflection process. The process will lead through Valetta during the upcoming Maltese presidency towards Rome where we will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the treaties of Rome establishing European integration. And it will round off the process launched in Bracislava and set out orientation for our common future together. The Slovak presidency naturally doesn't 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 ongoing processes, we have four ambitions set for the presidency. First is to make European economy stronger. Second is to modernize and broaden the single market in areas such as energy and the digital economy. Third is to work towards sustainable migration and asylum policy and forces to pay attention to our external environment, namely trade deals and enlargement policy. Let me start with European economy. We will support the environment favorable to investment, further economic growth and job creations. For that to happen, we will work on the deepening of the economic and monetary union and banking union. Building the capital markets union will be also in our focus. During our presidency, we will deal with the midterm review of the multi-annual financial framework and the budget of the union for 2017. They both must better reflect EU priorities and capabilities to help resolve latest challenges. There is no doubt that the single market is a success story for freedoms representing an excellent example of very concrete benefits of the EU for its citizens and for national economies as well. But in order 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 for citizens. Our presidency welcomes the adoption of the digital single market package of 25th of May and now we will work on its implementation. The energy union can contribute to secure supplies of clean energy at affordable prices for industrial citizens. To achieve this goal, our presidency is ready to work on further enhancing diversification of resources, supplies and transit routes, strengthening also energy interconnectivity of member states. The energy union project, by the way, is led by Slovak, member of the European Commission, commissions by the president, Marosiewicz. No surprise, a sustainable migration and asylum policy will belong to our top priorities and they will remain urgent issues not only during our presidency, but also in years to come. Moreover, it is not just some EU disease, this is a global problem indeed. Large scale involuntary migration will be the most likely global risk for decades to come. We can help resolve it only through joint EU-wide efforts in coordination with our global stakeholders. For this purpose, the Slovak presidency promotes comprehensive and sustainable solutions linking up all relevant internal and external aspects. We must return to a proper functioning of the Schengen area. We know that European board and coast guards will soon become operational. We will also support initiatives such as small board package and the effective cooperation with the third countries, both of origin and of transit of migrants. Speaking of asylum policy alone, let's not narrow it to a single initiative, the distribution of refugees under the Dublin regulation that Slovakia has criticized for its unsustainability. What we need is a comprehensive common European asylum system reform package. EU is working on this issue and we are ready to contribute to its urgent implementation. Beside 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 existing free movement of workers within the EU. We want the union to be strong global player. Our external partners expect us to continue our high level engagement in global affairs. Therefore, we must continue to pay attention to our external environment. I speak particularly of trade agreements and enlargement policy. We believe free trade is a significant contributor to internal and external stability of the EU. Facing these agreements of some members, Slovakia is convinced that the transatlantic trade and investment partnership would have positive impact on EU's growth, employment and overall well-being of citizens. So we are ready to support the EU commission to reach a balanced agreement while safeguarding the high level of EU standards. Equally we support an early approval of CETA agreement with Canada that we have reiterated a week ago at Bratislava informal foreign affairs council in trade formation meeting. Our presidency is ready to work on the implementation of new European global strategy for common foreign and security policy. At the same time we will remain a vocal advocate of more effective and preventive European neighbourhood policy. To the east we wish to make strong emphasis on stabilisation and reform processes and to the south we would like to focus in Teralia on countries causing massive migration flows to Europe. We will also try to ensure the credibility of enlargement policy. Given our own experience the enlargement policy is one of the most effective transformation tools. It is as a key instrument for stabilising our neighbourhood. We want to actively communicate that the path towards the EU leads via doing own home work. And in the end I would like to stress then in pursuing our presidency priorities Slovakia will continue to be an honest and fair broker like it should be. Now I am ready to hear your comments and ask some questions. Thank you very much, Your Excellency. We have a number of members who would like to ask questions. How pleasing it is to have Slovakia in Scotland this week. I learned a lot about your country at the reception that you had in Edinburgh last night. It was extremely interesting. Can I start by asking you what the Slovakian presidency has had on Slovakia's relationships with other member states in the European Union? What has the effect of the Slovakian presidency been on your relationship with other member states in the European Union? How have you benefited from holding the presidency? Presidency is important for any member state and that's why the rotating principle was established in order that every bigger or smaller member state, bigger or smaller economy have a chance to rule the organisation or to drive it through a certain period of time which is a half a year and this is the principle of equality in EU. Slovakia is an excellent opportunity really to focus attention on topics that are important to us but it's also an enormously positive tool of visibility of the country and we are using all those informal meetings in Slovakia. We have over 200 meetings of EU formations in Bratislava with roughly 20,000 participants coming to Slovakia this semester and diplomatic missions of Slovakia are doing a big promotion of Slovakia abroad and that was the reason when I was invited to this esteemed committee that I decided to stay all the week, all the working week in Scotland and meeting not only members of Scottish Parliament but also executive power business across universities. I'm having discussions in four Scottish universities and local authorities as well because we need also this specific example of a case of United Kingdom having its current developments in the relationship with the European Union that we need deeper expertise in this but everywhere we are promoting very much our small but very nice and positive and progressive country. Thank you very much Richard Lockhead. Good morning, Asadir and thank you for your evidence and explaining the benefits from the perspective of the Slovakian people of being a member of the European family of nations. Clearly Brexit is going to dominate a lot of your government's thinking throughout the duration of the presidency and beyond and I noticed that in the financial times a couple of weeks ago that your Prime Minister said that the European Union will make sure that the UK leaving the European Union is very painful for the UK and I was just wondering if you could elaborate and define the kind of pain you think will because the UK by leaving the EU. Thank you for this question definitely it's not up to ambassador to to comment his prime minister's statements and interviews however I'm of the opinion that what he expressed in open and sincere way is exactly that what European leaders are worried about. In our political culture if you allow me to philosophise a little bit we got accustomed to excessive views of constructive ambiguity in our statements and our citizens stopped to understand what political representatives have in mind. So that was an appeal in Bratislava where leaders of the EU met in September to speak and now I quote 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 extremist or populist political forces. This is what politicians have in mind when they try to explain in clear words where is the problem and it would be really naive to think that such a complex issue as disengagement of a big member state of the union could be a easy exercise. It will definitely require long and tough negotiations to agree on mutually acceptable deal and he mentioned this pain in order to understand better probably that it is really complex problem that will require a lot of negotiations and citizens must be aware that it will be difficult and that whole Europe not only United Kingdom will in certain level suffer from this. Clearly because Scotland voted to remain within the EU any likelihood as we expect it to be the case that the EU makes it very difficult for countries to leave the EU without a great deal of pain is understandably going to cause concern of the impact in Scotland and the Scottish government as you're aware are pursuing options to find out if it's possible for Scotland to maintain a relationship with Europe particularly as a member of the single market. If the UK government were to give the go ahead to Scotland to explore those options in a proper manner i.e. to have negotiations with member states and the European institutions is that something you think the Slovakian government and presidency would support? In my opinion it's too early to speculate about this question because we are not aware even about the basic parameters of British exit from the European Union. So we now really need to wait for British government to formulate its negotiation position that will be then considered in circle of 27 member states and their negotiator. I cannot give any promise on behalf of one government because it will be a consensual act of negotiations that will bring to this result. It would be simply not serious to answer this. I guess my last question just in terms of that timescale for understanding what the UK government's position is on the negotiations and all its different aspects. Does the Slovakian presidency or government have a view on what that timescale should be to finally get some kind of indication from the UK government of its negotiation positions? We were ready and in fact we adopted the Slovak presidency programme only after a referendum. We waited for a referendum in order to be actual and to declare in presidency priorities if we will either implement the February agreement of David Cameron's government with EU or we will need to tackle a new question of British exit from the European Union. So we expressed our readiness to start this process and now the ball is on the side of British government that we expect that will come with triggering article 50 and start the official negotiations. From our part, we are ready for negotiations. I just advise you that your microphone works automatically, so you do not need to worry about the button that works automatically. Lewis MacDonald. Thank you very much and may I start with a I hope a more factual question but one that perhaps will lead on to a slightly more political one. DDSU has been appointed to represent the Council of the European Union in the negotiations. Michelle Barney for the commission and Giefer Hofstad for the European Parliament. What from the perspective of the presidency, how do you see the roles of the three individuals I've mentioned? How will the presidency relate to each of those three parties to the negotiations with the UK? Every European institution nominated its representative, it means that every institution wants to be involved in the processes. Now the process once British government officially notifies European Union about its interest to leave the organization and trigger article 50, European Council will need to convene and to nominate the body that will hold the negotiations. It's not decided which body it will be but for this kind of operations European Union has a technical organism which is European commission that has full expertise for holding practical negotiations but heads of states and governments already declare that they want to keep control over the process so there will be found mechanism how to be involved also in these processes. And European Parliament is the same and as every process needs some supervisor they nominated these three persons to be there. Is it your expectation to allow me to understand does that mean that Michelle Barney will lead the negotiations or does it mean that he will lead on the day-to-day negotiations and then report back to the council as well as the commission? He should be negotiator for the commission so his body for reporting will be commission but it's up to decision of the council so now we need to wait for notification of British government and then European Council will decide on further procedures in this regard. So it's not yet settled in assets? No it's not agreed because it would be preliminary we don't know really even parameters of British exit from this. That's helpful. One of the issues perhaps from your perspective in relation to the Slovakian government that will be interesting is the statement made by the Vichygrad 4 around freedom of movement and clearly that includes your own Government. It appears from that statement that within the although you've described areas of agreement among the 27 member states it would appear from comments that have been made that some member states have stronger views on certain aspects of the potential negotiations than others and it would be a reasonable assumption that a public statement around freedom of movement by Slovakia and its neighbours reflects concern about the potential negotiating position of the European Union in relation to that issue. Can you comment on that? Would you say that that was a fair interpretation? Yes, as I understand it every political leaders and especially Governments express their views even if we do not react to concrete parameters of British exit yet but there was a reaction for commentaries of British politicians who are establishing certain red lines for future negotiations by public statements regarding for instance the freedom of movement and that was the reaction to these statements. We feel that mentioning issue of EU citizens living and working in the UK who are not migrants but they are people using the freedom of the common space is correct. They have moved to your country in Bonafide legally using the opportunities of common market and the same relates to British citizens working in EU area. It's not absolutely naturally and Prime Minister expressed just the wish of Slovak government and then also in Visigrad format of Czech, Polish, Hungarian, Slovak government to pay adequate attention to this problem in negotiations when they start and in fact in June council conclusions after your referendum. There is written article 4 that access to single market requires acceptance of all four freedoms so these are generally agreed lines of European union in this context. But would it be fair to say that the stress laid on that particular issue by the Visigrad formation is simply a view of four member states it doesn't necessarily bind or reflect the Slovakian presidency of the council for its period of office? Yes, and you are right, you are correct. Sorry, can I just ask a supplementary on that, just to clarify it? Is it your understanding that you cannot have access to the single market or be a member of the single market without also having free movement of people? The table with one leg will be very label and this is the problem we consider really that you shouldn't give or put in disadvantage other members of the club by giving advantage to one of them. This is one of the results also of head of state meetings in Bratislava, where they stated precisely this that we need to, I cannot find it now, sorry, but in this sense. You know the Visigrad statement suggested that those four countries at least would veto any deal which excluded free movement of people, is that your Government's position that you would veto any deal that didn't allow free movement of people? I'm just trying to check in the statement of Visigrad if there is that the countries would veto, maybe it's not written in this form, but definitely it is the common interest of Central European countries, you know that our neighbours and we have dozens of thousands of citizens living in the UK and for us it is an obligation to protect the rights of our citizens. Okay, thank you very much, Rachel Hamilton. Your Excellency, your Prime Minister, Robert Fico, used his speech to say that the European Parliament outlines the strength of the EU, saying that it's an amazing and unique project, but he also said that it's not perfect but for which there is no alternative. I also read that one of your three principles is to restore citizens' confidence in the common European project. Firstly, do you think that the UK-EU referendum result has caused uncertainty amongst the remaining 27 member states and are they questioning their membership of the EU? I try to explain it also in my introductory words that this is a big issue for the union and it was a wake-up call for all the Europe, the result of British referendum and to following how people react to campaigns and then we realised that really we do not pay enough attention to underline positive sides of European integration. All the positives are taken for granted, especially for younger generation. They do not think about the need for passport when they go to neighbouring countries because they simply do not need it. From time to time, we need to remind it repeatedly that there are advantages of the European Union of this project. Mentioning that it's not perfect definitely is not and it never can be, but it's the best project of integration we ever had in Europe. This project is guaranteeing peace and stability in Europe for 70 years and we must underline this all the time in public communications. Unfortunately, we are witnessing that good news are no news and nobody wants to speak about any positive aspects. Everybody is taking only negative experience. That happens naturally. This is a live organism and, as I said, it's not perfect. This is also the attitude of our presidency and it's mirrored also in Bratislava declaration. This need for sincere and open communication with citizens and to show them that we commented on Bratislavi 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 capacity to achieve it. This is the concrete message of political leaders of the EU to this question. Thank you. Immigration control was obviously one of the main reasons that a lot of people in the UK voted to leave. I'm wondering if you'd like to give your opinion on if you think that other countries are looking to reform areas of EU policies such as immigration. As we think that it's necessary simply to reform the immigration system because last year development showed that the numbers of illegal but irregular migrants that came to Europe was too big to absorb by Europe and it started to threaten the security of the union, its member states and individual citizens. We need really to use all the instruments available to hold this process and there are many instruments in fact some are short perspective instruments aimed at resolution of acute problem like was the agreement of EU with Turkey which was unbelievable before but then EU could agree with Turkey mechanism for stopping that enormous flow from Turkey to Greece and to Schengen area through Greece. Then definitely instruments of foreign and security policy must be involved in this process. We need to make more efforts in conflict countries in order to stop the military conflicts and to stop the humanitarian immigration of the people from affected regions. This is very important and definitely we need also to do something with European asylum system because the Geneva conventions were adopted in the 1950s and today they do not reflect the realities of the 21st century. I have two members who have indicated the wish to ask a question, Stuart McMillan and Emma Harper. Is it on this particular topic? No really. I will go to Stuart McMillan because he caught my eye first. No thank you very much and good morning Ambassador. There was one thing that you said, there were two comments that you mentioned just regarding the EU, one being a wake-up call and also all positives are taken for granted but in terms of the EU and with the UK's decision to leave the EU project, do you see that as being a threat to the future existence of the EU but also what opportunities do you see for the EU to reform and progress and make it more realistic and tangible for the members and for those people who live within the EU? Thank you for your question. I think that it's more fair if I will quote the declaration of head of states of EU 27 that made in Bratislava that particularly mentions this question that also one country has decided to leave, the EU remains indispensable for the rest of us. In the aftermath of the wars and deep divisions of 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 the joint history and this is I think that generally the answer that there is a strong determination of EU to continue as a bloc and not to be tempted by ideas that now one member state leaves and lets dissolve the club because we do not have alternative for the EU. One of the things about the EU that has been apparent over the years has been its flexibility to actually find solutions to problems that arise. In terms of the EU and the UK situation, also the EU and the situation for Scotland and Northern Ireland and also Gibraltar who voted very much in favour to actually remain part of the EU, what is your impression of any flexibility that the EU could actually adopt for the future of Scotland and Northern Ireland and Gibraltar? I'm afraid I'm not competent to answer this question. This is a question that will be, that is internal affair of the United Kingdom, that is a member state of the union and once there are some developments that the EU will be entitled to react to, it will react definitely. But meanwhile it's impossible to speculate on such sensitive issues. I thought I would try, I expected you to say that. One other question just in terms of the triggering of article 50 and also with Slovakia having the presidency of the EU at the moment. Would Slovakia prefer article 50 to be triggered sooner or later in order for any further meaningful discussions to actually take place? Yes. I already tried to explain that our aim is to have clarity as soon as possible because we feel that markets are awaiting, they are not developing. There is nothing tragical happened after referendum but 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 and the prorogation of these uncertainties is detrimental to all of us. This is the reason why we would like to have clear vision of British partners, what perspective of future relationship of United Kingdom is Europe they envisage? The lack of vision and clarity is creating economic uncertainty in terms of investment decisions. That's right. Good morning, Ambassador. In previous meetings, we have discussed the human aspects of Brexit and the relationships between people and the movement of people. Do you or your Prime Minister, Robert Fico, are you concerned that EU workers will be treated as second-class citizens during this whole Brexit process? As I understood it, Prime Minister Fico expressed the view that the rights of workers could be the topic in negotiations that would potentially harm the interests of EU workers in the UK and also British workers in other countries of European Union. He expressed the view that this is not acceptable simply from our point of view because the government must take care of citizens' rights. It didn't do anything that would be illegal. It is legally binding for every Government of common space to accept. On that topic, as you are ambassador to the Court of St James, have you made representations to the UK Government on behalf of securing the rights of your citizens living in the UK? We had, as ambassadors, a couple of meetings with UK Government representatives, particularly after the referendum and after the cases of physical and verbal attacks on people from European Union, just after the referendum, which we understand are some leftovers of this negative campaign in the referendum, the race of these xenophobic movements, but we were told that the British Government is following the situation closely. It's not allowing any violation of human rights or laws of this country any hate crimes in this regard. Of course, you will be aware that, in Scotland, where we voted, the Parliament and the First Minister remain, and indeed all the political leaders have been very clear that EU citizens are very welcome in Scotland and Salahcain citizens are very welcome in Scotland. Ross Greer. Ambassador, to go back to Rachael Hamilton's question, there is much mention from your Prime Minister about repairing the holes that have been made in the Schengen area and addressing, as you mentioned, issues around refugees and asylum seekers coming to Europe. Does the Salahcain Government distinguish between economic migrants, who are coming here for reasons and choice, from refugees who are fleeing war in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, et cetera? The Salahcain Government has rejected the idea of quotas to spread the number of refugees arriving across Europe. You 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 arrived, say, through Libya to Italy. What is the Salahcain Government's position in regards to these refugees who cannot be pushed back through Turkey? Our Government's stand is that this is a global issue, but for us it is a European issue and it must be resulting in a European way. We really tried to attract the attention of political debate about this topic to the fact that maybe the majority of the people who are travelling irregularly to the European Union are not from the regions that are in war conflict, but they are going to Europe as economic migrants. We have other procedures to attract working force to Europe legally, legally instruments, and this is not acceptable simply. But facing to this massive migration, there needed some legal procedures in order to stop this. One of the, that was this agreement with Turkey, because there was a big portion, another is one is through Mediterranean. You are right. Unfortunately, for now we do not have partner on another side because Libya doesn't have government. So this is the task for common foreign insecurity policy instruments to influence situation in Libya in order to have working government and to have a possibility to create hotspots on territory of Libya where these people taken on the sea could be brought to and there to start the process of information gathering about the persons who are, if they are really asylum seekers or they are economic migrants, these are various layouts of this process that must be taken up. And regarding this distribution, obligatory distribution, we are in favour of voluntary distribution because we don't think that obligatory distribution can be, in fact, realised in open space, in space without borders. If somebody wishes to go to Germany, we cannot put chain on him and tell him that he will stay in Slovakia. Unfortunately, we are not able to do it and we stated it. We were accused of all the sins of the word for this, but this is the fact and it is the way that population understands. There are arguments that population perceives the clarity of words. We could also say that, okay, we will accept this mechanism and then everybody who would come or 90% of those who would come would immediately live to Germany. But what for to be so hypocritical. This is an attempt to establish a new form of communication with the population. Sometimes it is perceived very negatively and critically, particularly by media. Is there a recognition of the concern that many Europeans have with Turkey that a deal has been done with Turkey to push refugees back there when, in fact, many refugees, particularly Kurdish refugees, flee Turkey because of the persecution that they face from that government, not just from places further than Turkey says Syria that they fled from? That Turkey in itself is a nation that produces refugees because of its government suppression? That is not a question for the president. It is definitely not among the president's priorities. Thank you very much. You said this morning and described as 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? Yes, I have some more detailed information about the economy aspect in particular. Are you interested in monetary aspect union? Well, if you are interested in more deep information about this, we can send you the full information of current developments in this sphere. We just had an informal ecofin meeting a few weeks a week ago in Bratislava, so it made some step forward in this area. That would be very helpful. Jean-Claude Juncker two weeks ago said that it was something that he hoped to be in the white paper following this presidency. So it would be very useful to understand how that is. Thank you very much. I appreciate that committee. I thank your excellency for giving your evidence today and wish you well for the rest of your time in Scotland. Thank you very much and you will now close and go into private session. Thank you.