Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Official Report 672KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Valuation (Postponement of Revaluation) (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Order 2020 [Draft]

Under agenda item 2, the committee will take evidence on the draft Valuation (Postponement of Revaluation) (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Order 2020. I welcome Ben Macpherson, the Minister for Public Finance and Migration; and, from the Scottish Government, Ian Storrie, the head of non-domestic rates policy, and Anouk Berthier, the non-domestic rates team leader.

The instrument has been laid under affirmative procedure, which means that Parliament must approve it before the provisions can come into force. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider the motion to approve the instrument.

We have sought views on the instrument from interested bodies and the responses that were received are set out at annex B of committee paper LGC/S5/20/29/1. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows.

I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Good morning, colleagues. First, I thank the committee for the opportunity to give evidence and to make this statement. I hope that our written evidence provided helpful context. I was also grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Scottish Government’s position with several members of the committee in recent weeks.

I highlight once again that we are not considering a party-political issue but a judgment about balancing risk for the benefit of businesses and public finances. Indeed, for context, I note that the Scottish Government’s proposal to delay the revaluation date to 2023 has also been called for by the Conservative Government in Westminster and by the Labour Government in Wales. What is more, I remind members that Ruth Davidson requested the delay in the chamber on 1 September—the day on which we announced our proposal to do exactly that in the programme for government.

The decision that is before the committee today is ultimately a simple binary choice. If the committee supports the instrument in question, the next revaluation will take place in 2023 with a one-year tone date of 1 April 2022. If the committee rejects the instrument, the next revaluation is scheduled in law to take place in 2022 with, I am concerned to say, a two-year tone date of 1 April 2020.

Despite the binary choice, I anticipate that the committee will wish to explore the Government’s view on a third option of a 2022 revaluation with a 2021 tone date. However, I must emphasise that the Government has no intention to consider that option if the instrument is rejected.

The option of a 2022 revaluation with a 2021 tone date is, of course, one that we in Government carefully considered, but ultimately rejected. Our decision was based on risk. With respect, those arguing for a 2021 tone date appear to be doing so based primarily on following the word of the Barclay review while overlooking the spirit of the review.

I submit that their arguments do not adequately take into account the impact of the situation that we face as a result of the pandemic. I highlight that I have not seen evidence to justify a 2021 tone date. Furthermore, from an operational delivery perspective, I must point out that a 2021 tone date would require assessors, with only around 15 months’ notice, essentially to deliver a six-month revaluation in order to inform the Scottish budget process. Therefore, although some may use the word “challenging” to describe a potential 2022 revaluation with a 2021 tone date, I argue that such a proposal runs the risk of compromising the entire revaluation exercise.

First, there are the operational impacts of the pandemic. It is a little more than four months until 1 April 2021, and, unfortunately, the number of Covid cases continues to increase. We know that the rating profession has appropriately taken up the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s coronavirus job retention scheme and that the profession was subject to national lockdown for much of the summer. We also know that the private sector rating agents are typically city-based but often provide a national service. Conversely, assessors have local offices but often cover multiple local authorities.

We need to consider that, under the strategic framework, one third of local authorities are entering level 4 and are subject to travel restrictions. In addition, it is not inconceivable that some areas might be significantly restricted again between now and next April. Moreover, where businesses are open, we know that some have refused to allow strangers—including rating surveyors and assessors—on site to reduce the risks of Covid transmission.

Put simply, given all that disruption, there are temporarily fewer professionals to do the job of revaluation, and, where they are available, there are legal and structural impediments preventing them from doing their jobs.

Secondly, we also need to consider the risk of a lack of evidence on which to base a potential 2022 revaluation with a 2021 tone date.

Since Covid, about 50,000 appeals have been lodged claiming a material change of circumstances. Some of those are believed to be duplicates, but every valid appeal is entitled to request an expedited hearing. However, despite the financial and economic challenges that are facing businesses, there has not been, to my knowledge, a single request for an expedited hearing. I think that that is a clear and compelling indication that appellants do not yet hold the evidence to support their case.

Furthermore, last Thursday, the Federation of Small Businesses published a poll that found that

“seven in 10 ... Scottish rent-paying businesses have been forced pay rent as normal throughout this crisis”.

Colleagues, we may disagree on various things, but I am sure that we agree that 2020 has been far from normal, as the FSB has evidenced for almost 70 per cent of small businesses.

More fundamentally, I am not aware of any credible evidence having been provided to assessors to support a change in rateable value.

Those points are undoubtedly correlated. They point to a lack of robust evidence on which to base a revaluation without significant risk of unintended but utterly predictable consequences.

Revaluations are revenue neutral by design, in order to maintain the income stream that supports public services that we all rely on delivered through local government. Therefore, they inevitably create a situation in which those who see their rates liabilities increase are offset by those who see their liabilities fall.

The winners and losers—I use those phrases advisedly—are not a matter of political influence, but are determined on the basis of regional and sectoral rental evidence. I am not suggesting that that evidence cannot come forward in time for 1 April 2021, but, on the basis of the verifiable evidence available to ministers, we have no confidence that it will—and certainly not in a way that fully reflects the impact of Covid-19 or Brexit, nor in a way that reflects the volumes or sectoral and geographic coverage that is necessary to enable a stable revaluation.

I believe that it is important that we give the market time to stabilise, to allow the evidence to catch up with reality and identify the correct winners and losers, rather than risk using structurally deficient evidence.

Indeed, when it comes to considering the winners and losers of an upcoming revaluation, it is undeniably clear from the written evidence provided ahead of today’s meeting that the overwhelming priority for the Scottish business community is certainty over the future of reliefs. That is where our focus should be after today’s decision has been taken.

However, I must also reiterate that, as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has previously emphasised, given the constraints of the fiscal framework, decisions on the future of Covid-19 reliefs can be taken only in the context of United Kingdom Government spending decisions. We therefore hope that the chancellor will provide that certainty in his statement next week, to allow us to reflect those decisions in the Scottish budget rather than awaiting his March budget, which is only weeks before the current relief is scheduled to expire.

There is no political or even financial benefit to the Scottish Government from delaying revaluation. However, there are significant unintended consequences if we do not and the values at revaluation are not accurate and robust.

Although nothing about 2020 has been ideal, delaying the revaluation is a prudent, pragmatic and practical measure that we can collectively take to respond appropriately to the consequences of the global pandemic. Delaying the revaluation is the majority view of business organisations in Scotland. I hope that the committee will appreciate our risk-based approach to the next revaluation. If the instrument does not proceed there will not, as I emphasised earlier, be a delay to the revaluation or a change of tone date. Therefore, I hope that members will support our proposal, which seeks to ensure fairness for Scottish ratepayers in aggregate, while maintaining the stability of public finances.

I look forward to any questions the committee may have.

Thank you very much, minister, for that full explanation of your view.

So far, we have three members wanting to ask questions. If any other members have a question that they would like to ask, please put “R” in the chat box. I will start with Sarah Boyack, to be followed by Alexander Stewart and then Andy Wightman.

I thank you, minister, for the opportunity to meet you in advance of this session.

You said that the majority of Scottish businesses support a delay in the tone date, but we have had evidence that they do not support the tone date that you have proposed to us today. I would like you to address that specific issue.

In addition, you suggested that, if the tone date proposal was not passed, you would not bring forward the alternative tone date, which many businesses have been in touch with us to say that they would prefer.

Can you explain the economic assessment that you have carried out to date? You said in your introductory remarks that you have looked at the economy and assessed the risks. Can you specifically address the difference between a tone date of 2021 and a tone date of 2022, which is the key concern that we have heard from businesses? I accept what you say on the reliefs issue, but we will come back to that.

There are three important questions there.

First, with regard to the considerations of the business community, we have not only read the submissions with interest; we also engaged significantly with the business community before the announcement in the programme for government. The engagement has been appropriate—we have, as the committee would expect, met a variety of business organisations and discussed the point that Sarah Boyack raised on several occasions since the Covid pandemic began.

It is not fair to say that the business community has a preferred position—there are differing positions. For example, the FSB, in its written submission, states:

“We ... broadly support the Scottish Government’s decision to change their approach to the revaluation cycle, as they’ve done in Wales and England.”

The Confederation of British Industry Scotland says:

“CBI ... understands the practical arguments in favour of postponing the non-domestic rates revaluation to 2023-24, in light of the impact the pandemic and its associated restrictions have had ... on individuals, businesses and the Scottish economy as a whole.”

We appreciate that some business organisations do not agree with our proposition, but there is no unified position on the change to the tone and revaluation dates. Where there is a unified position, it is—from what I have seen in the submissions to the committee—that the dates should change from the current tone date of 1 April 2020 with a revaluation in 2022.

09:45  

With regard to the proposal that we have brought forward today, it is fair to say that the preferred position of businesses is a change from the status quo—that is absolutely the shared view. I note that the Scottish Property Federation made it clear in its submission that, although it would prefer the alternative position of a tone date in 2021 with a revaluation in 2022, it does not want the status quo to continue. The main point is that there are different positions.

Sarah Boyack’s next point was on whether we have considered that the evidence base for 2021 will not be accurate. I refer back to my opening statement and the points that I made about a balance of risk. There is no easy answer to the question of what the correct tone date is. In that regard, our approach was risk based.

We take the view that the structural deficit between the economic reality and the market rental evidence will persist into 2021-22, because the number of Covid-19 cases is still rising and there is continued uncertainty around Brexit. As I mentioned in my opening statement, there will temporarily be fewer professionals available to do the job of revaluation. Where they are available, there are legal and structural impediments that may prevent them from doing their jobs.

For example, as I said, many private sector agents were furloughed and may still be on furlough; private sector agents are predominantly based in cities but operate nationally; and assessors are regional, so their work straddles local authority boundaries. Restrictions on non-essential movement were in place for much of the summer, and it appears that they are likely to return in some areas.

As I said in my opening statement, businesses are blocking access to their premises for those who are not staff, including rating surveyors and assessors. Record keeping is often still paper based and it is therefore more challenging for people to access records while they are working from home. We are advised that, in the coming months, access to offices will be prioritised for electoral staff rather than valuation staff. There are therefore practical and operational constraints and considerations in respect of gathering evidence ahead of next year. Further to that, there are considerations around whether the market will have adjusted.

Again, I point to my opening statement, in which I emphasised the results of the FSB’s survey. It revealed that 70 per cent of those who were surveyed by the small business community said that there had been no renegotiation between tenants and landlords of commercial property. The lease arrangements between tenants and landlords, therefore, have not caught up with the realities of the current situation and the challenges that businesses face, which does not fit in with the idea that evidence could be gathered ahead of next year.

We have balanced all those practical and evidence-based considerations, and we think that setting a tone date of 2022 offers the chance that the evidence base will have caught up in order to make sure that there is a robust position on which to base the next three-year revaluation.

Perhaps Ian Storrie and Anouk Berthier could come in at this stage with some further points to substantiate what I have said.

On Sarah Boyack’s final question regarding the impact assessment, that would require an accurate assessment of something that is essentially in the future. We would need different rents on different dates across 2020, 2021 or even 2022, if we are thinking ahead, to be translated into revaluation rateable values. That would also require an accurate estimate of the poundage in subsequent years, and it would have to take into account any public support that might be offered—for example, through relief. Businesses and Government would need have access to an assessment of all those parameters in order to form a full judgment.

As Ben Macpherson said, our concern is that the rental evidence will not be available in 2021, and that it will not be robust in reflecting revaluation. We have to remember that the Barclay review’s recommendation on moving to regular revaluations, with a one-year period between the tone date and the revaluation date, was that rateable values should reflect the economic circumstances as at the time of revaluation. We are very much trying to deliver on the spirit of that recommendation by introducing a one-year tone period with a revaluation on the basis of stable, robust and reliable post-Covid values.

Alexander Stewart will come in now. Minister, I ask you to try to keep your answers quite short—thank you.

I thank the minister for our early discussions with him on the matter.

The Scottish Government is normally robust in its consultation and engagement, but organisations have made it clear that, on this occasion, that did not seem to be the case. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, the Scottish Property Federation and others did not feel that they were consulted in the normal manner by the Scottish Government.

Secondly, with regard to the differing regional situations across Scotland, I ask the minister to comment on the situation in the north east. In the current situation, given the economic downturn in the economic gas and oil industry, businesses in that region find themselves potentially penalised under the process. When the Government is looking at making decisions on a revaluation tone date, that will have an impact on certain regions of Scotland.

Again, those are important questions. As you would expect with a proposition such as this one, we have a duty to inform Parliament first. That is why the Scottish Government put forward its formal position on the matter in the programme for government. Of course, in the past year, we have all had to react more rapidly than normal, but we engaged with business on the proposition. In May, we had a conference call with UKHospitality and the FSB. In June, I took part in the Scottish Government’s regular weekly call with all the business organisations and asked for their thoughts on both the revaluation date and the tone date.

In July, I had a meeting with the Scottish Retail Consortium. In August, I met a number of commercial property providers, the valuation appeal panels and the Scottish Property Federation. Since the announcement in the programme for government, there has been a lot of engagement with business organisations. For the sake of succinctness, I will not list them all, but I hope that that illustrates that there was significant and appropriate engagement with business.

Given the timeframe and the need to inform Parliament of our position first, which is why it was in the programme for government, we did not undertake a consultation exercise to the extent that we may have done in other times. However, it is not correct to say that there was no engagement with business organisations—there absolutely was, and that was done proactively.

With regard to the other important points that have been raised about considerations affecting different geographies and sectors, and the concerns of some stakeholders about a detachment between business rates and rental values as things stand, the Scottish Government recognises those points. That is why we are focusing on the consideration of reliefs in the coming period in particular, although that will be subject to Barnett consequentials. That is where our collective focus should be.

Those who are arguing for a 2021 tone date should recognise that, as I have stated, that would run the real risk that the evidence that assessors are legally obliged to follow simply would not reflect the reality. If those risks manifest themselves, the situation would exist for the full period of the next revaluation cycle.

The whole ethos behind our argument for a tone date of 2022 and a revaluation in 2023 is that we do not want to run the risk that the next period—the next three years after that—will not reflect the reality. Those in the north-east argue that the current position does not reflect the reality of the situation for businesses there and that there is a detachment between business rates and rental values. The solution cannot, therefore, be to deal with a detachment between business rates and rental values in the here and now in some sectors and some places by taking a position that could create the same risk across the whole country.

It would be prudent to have a revaluation in 2023 with a 2022 tone date in order to give both the market and the evidence base the best chance to catch up. The valuation will then reflect reality in the subsequent three-year period. I hope that that answers Mr Stewart’s question.

For the sake of saving time, I should say that the substance of my questions has already been addressed in the responses to Alexander Stewart and Sarah Boyack, so I have no further questions.

Thank you very much for that. Sarah Boyack, did you want to come back in?

There is so much to ask. The minister said that if the committee did not support his proposals today, we would be stuck with a 2020 tone date. There is clearly no support for that and people welcomed the fact that the minister suggested an alternative tone date. If we rejected your proposals today, would you listen to the committee, or indeed the Parliament, come back with a different tone date and engage the business community in the discussions that many say they do not feel they have had?

We are taking such a strong position that the binary choice for the committee today is the one that needs to be considered, rather than the other options that we considered, because we do not think that 2021 is any better than 2020 when it comes to a tone date. As I said in my opening statement, the pressured timescale that there would be for 2021 would be challenging for assessors with multiple structural and operational obstacles. That is strongly emphasised in the Scottish Assessors Association submission to the committee.

10:00  

Again, pointing to the FSB survey in particular, evidence that the market is likely to have caught up in 2021 is significantly limited. Of course, there could be evidence—we are trying to be balanced here—but on the basis of what we have seen so far, that survey and other engagement we have had suggests to us that the evidence base in April next year will not have caught up with the reality of what businesses are facing. In particular, we have to be cognisant of the fact that the second wave of the pandemic is under way, unfortunately, and that has meant significant further restrictions under the framework. We do not know how the next months will pan out. Obviously, we hope the levels of the virus will go down. We also do not yet know what the consequences of Brexit will be.

The likelihood of the evidence base next spring reflecting what the commercial property market is like is severely constrained and there are so many unknown factors. On the balance of risk, we do not think that a 2021 tone date would be any more advantageous in terms of a relative judgment on the evidence than a 2020 tone date.

Ian Storrie, could you come in on this point, please?

Our view is that the evidence shows that the risks are broadly similar between 2020 and 2021, but the operational risks associated with 2021 are significantly greater for assessors. As Mr Macpherson has pointed out, there are 50,000 material change of circumstance appeals in the system, and assessors normally get 70,000 appeals to deal with over a three-year to five-year period. The workload and the human resource that they will need to devote to addressing 50,000 appeals is huge.

In many cases, we would like to know the outcome of those material change of circumstances appeals because they are likely to set some tone for the next revaluation. It is important to see the two of them in parallel. As Mr Macpherson said in his opening statement, when we talk about a one-year tone date, we are really talking about a six-month tone date from 1 April. By September or October, the Scottish Government needs the headline high-level outcomes from the revaluation to inform the budget process to meet the Parliament’s budget timetable, so when we talk about a one-year tone date, it is not really a one-year timetable.

Ahead of the planned move to a one-year tone date in what would be 2025, assessors are starting to move towards more rolling collection of data. They are comfortable that they can probably get it in place with a delayed tone date of 2022, but there is no chance they would be able to get it in place across the country in time for a tone date of next year. The data collection obstacles are significant and doing that would undermine the long-term direction of travel of the Barclay review.

Finally—and this is a slightly anecdotal but hugely important point—a lot of the evidence held by assessors is held in their offices. They still use a largely paper-based system, so there are practical issues with accessing the data. That will also be the same for private agents. In the discussions I had with assessors yesterday ahead of today’s meeting, there is another consideration of restricting access to assessors’ offices. At the moment, they have to give priority to their electoral registration officers ahead of the election. Access for valuation staff will be even more restricted than it currently is. For those operational reasons, and given that the evidence base is broadly comparable for the two tone dates, we have advised ministers that the risks of a 2021 tone date are significantly greater.

I have some brief points and I am more than happy if the minister wants to respond with a one-word answer in the interests of brevity. I want to see if I have got my head around some of the points that have been made correctly. There is no evidence being led for doing other than what is proposed by the Scottish Government or to say what would be a better way to proceed. There are real problems with the assessors either going out to properties or even doing the office-based work necessary to bring the tone date forward. The evidence from the FSB, which has, by far, the largest number of members—small businesses are the backbone of the Scottish economy—supports what the Scottish Government intends to do. It is similar to what is being done in England and Wales, as I understand it. The Scottish Government is saying that it has no intention of coming forward with an alternative, as proposed, if the order is not successful. I just want to know whether I have got that right, because it seems a fairly straightforward case to me.

In the interests of brevity, yes, Mr Brown is correct in all those points.

All questions have been answered, so we will go on to item 3, which is formal consideration of motion S5M-23058, which calls for the committee to recommend the approval of the Draft Valuation (Postponement of Revaluation) (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Order 2020 on which we have just taken evidence. I invite the minister to move the motion and speak to it if he has anything to add.

Motion moved,

That the Local Government and Communities Committee recommends that the Valuation (Postponement of Revaluation) (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Order 2020 [draft] be approved.—[Ben Macpherson]

Thank you. I invite contributions from members, who should type “R” in the box. Andy Wightman said that he would like to come in at this point.

I thank the minister for the engagement prior to today, and those who have submitted written evidence. This is an important issue, as the minister recognises.

I sense that he committee is in a rather unfortunate place, given that this was announced in the programme for Government. We have a binary choice and there is no scope for the committee to explore options. We might end up in the same place as the minister, but that option is not easily available. The process is not ideal, but we are where we are. I do not accept some of the suppositions and the premises that are set out in the Government’s submission around, for example, revenue neutrality. Revenue neutrality depends on rates being set. It is important to have regular revaluations that reflect the state of the economy.

It is unfortunate that we are going to have to continue to live with an outdated valuation base from 2015 for the next two years under the proposal, but I found the minister’s comments helpful, I found the Scottish Government’s additional evidence helpful and I also found the evidence from witnesses extremely helpful. As a result of that, I am persuaded—at least on the balance of risk—that the Government’s approach is the appropriate approach to take, and thus I will be supporting the instrument.

I agree with Andy Wightman that the additional evidence that we have heard today has been helpful, but it does not address all the concerns that we have heard from businesses. The minister mentioned the FSB, which gave useful evidence and made additional points about its concerns about how reliefs work and how the business rates work for its members, many of whom do not get the benefit of reliefs because they are in the supply chain but do not operate out of premises. It has concerns about how reliefs will continue during the next couple of years because they are already impacted. I would have liked to have heard a bit more about the issue of resourcing for assessors, because every time there is a valuation there are tens of thousands of appeals and we have heard that the business community expects there to have been some test cases by January or February, when there will be more clarity.

I still have reservations. I welcome the additional information, but it emphasises the fact that the minister is giving us a binary choice; it is his choice to frame it in that way and I do not think that it is the best choice. Some businesses are concerned about 2022 rather than 2021, given that they are either partner businesses or competitors in other parts of the UK. I still think there are outstanding concerns and I am keen to get as much as we can on support for businesses, because it will not just be about our vote today, there will be the issue of future rates relief and huge concerns that it will be tapered.

There was a comment by one of your colleagues that it is important we do not undermine the Barclay review, but ironically that is precisely one of the concerns that businesses have put to us. They are worried that, even under the Government’s proposals, there might be a delay with a 2023 revaluation, so there is a real issue about certainty. You have correctly mentioned Brexit, and we have the pandemic, but there are fears that, even if the committee votes for the instrument and Parliament supports it, it is not a done deal. There are major concerns about the future of businesses and the need for effective Scottish Government support for the future.

Finally, I want to talk about assessors. Businesses have to face the concerns that you raise across the country every day, whether they are doing work, or whether it is the organisations that have had to keep going. In thinking about how we restart and kick-start our economy, support for assessors will be vital in the future. That could mean financial support to enable them to have staff. Many businesses and public sector agencies have had to recruit additional staff to deal with the pandemic; surely Scottish Government ministers should also be considering that.

It has been useful to hear some of the responses this morning from the minister and his officials. I still have serious concerns that we are not supporting the business community as the business community would like. I acknowledge the fact that the FSB has made some representations, but is not it the case that maybe 80 per cent of its members are not paying rates because of the small business bonus scheme? The strong representation that we have heard from Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Licensed Trade Association that we are not taking on board their main issues gives me cause for concern. We should be supporting the business sector, protecting jobs and ensuring that we can help them through this crisis that we face.

I still have some strong views. I am unhappy that we are being given this binary choice this morning by the minister, because I still think that the introduction of a revaluation in 2022 and a tone date of 2021 is what the majority of business communities appear to want and we are not respecting that. I will not support the minister’s proposal this morning.

Minister, would you like to sum up?

Briefly, I appreciate the points that have been raised and the indication of Mr Wightman’s support, in particular. I note the points that Sarah Boyack has raised, which of course are all important. As you would expect, we are considering the points that she raised, as well as what communication would be appropriate to use with the committee to follow up on those points.

As I say, this is a balance of risk. There is strong support in the business community for our proposal. We want to support the business community and that is why we are taking this position. We appreciate that there is a difference of opinion out there, but we are determined to work with the business community after today’s decision to continue to consider reliefs, which I know the committee is rightly concerned about, as are we, and which are subject to Barnett consequentials. After today’s decision, we will work proactively and constructively with the business community on considerations around reliefs and how we move forward towards a robust revaluation as we all work together to come through this crisis.

The question is, that motion S5M-23058 in the name of the Minister for Public Finance and Migration be approved. Are we all agreed?

We are not agreed. In that case, we will move to a division, and I will do it by roll call. I will do that in alphabetical order and I will vote at the end.

For

Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3.

Motion agreed to,

That the Local Government and Communities Committee recommends that the Valuation (Postponement of Revaluation) (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Order 2020 [draft] be approved.

I thank the minister. The committee will report on the order in due course and I invite the committee to delegate authority to me as convener to approve a draft of the report for publication.

I thank the ministers and his officials for taking part in the meeting. I now suspend briefly to allow a change of witnesses. Thank you, minister.

10:15 Meeting suspended.  

10:18 On resuming—