Official Report 244KB pdf
Good morning. Welcome to the 27th meeting in 2009 of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I remind members and the public to turn off all mobile phones and BlackBerrys.
I welcome the inquiry that the committee is undertaking, as local government and its relationship with the Scottish Government are crucial if we are to move forward through difficult economic times. Local government finance is clearly a major contributor in that respect.
Good morning. I want to start today's discussion by focusing on the issue of pay and employment levels in Scotland's councils. Can you confirm the contractual position, as negotiated with the trade unions, in relation to projected salary increases in the 2009-10 financial year and indicate what pay increases are projected for 2010-11 and 2011-12?
Do you mean in relation to local government?
Yes.
I am not party to the negotiations on pay levels in local government, but my recollection is that the pay deal for 2009-10 was of the order of 2 per cent. Because, as I said, I am not party to those negotiations, I do not ordinarily have that number at the front of my mind. For 2010-11, some local government employees will be involved in existing three-year pay deals. For example, teachers are in that category and police officers will be in it until the end of 2011. There is no general local government staff pay deal beyond March 2010. That will be negotiated separately by local government beyond 2010. I am not aware of any pay deals that are extant for the period 2011-12.
Do you have an estimate of the increase in the payroll bill for general staff for 2010-11, as part of your projections for the financial support that the Government gives to councils?
It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on that, because a negotiation has to be undertaken by the local government employers with the trade unions. That negotiation has not yet been completed, so it would be singularly unhelpful for me to speculate on the pay increase that would be appropriate.
Yes, but the Government pays 80 per cent of the bill, in the form of central grants and business rates allocations. Is it appropriate that those matters should be negotiated wholly independently of the Government and that the Government, as the major funder, has no view on the appropriate level of salary increases in the current financial climate?
It would be completely inappropriate for me to intervene in that process. It is for local government to decide what its approach will be to pay levels. The Government puts in place resources that provide a significant amount of local authorities' funding, but local authorities are independent statutory institutions and are therefore perfectly entitled to take a decision on pay. Obviously, they must take a decision that is sustainable within the resources that they have available, but that is entirely a question for local government to judge and not one for me to consider.
The other side of the coin is the number of people who are employed in local government in Scotland. We have received evidence that, according to the most recent figures, the number of full-time equivalent employees in Scotland's councils has contracted by 6,700. Has the Government, in conjunction with its wider economic advisers, made any estimate of what further contraction in local government employment numbers might arise as a consequence of the financial settlement for 2010-11 and the overall state of council finances?
It is hard to dispute the proposition that there will be a reduction in public sector employment in the years to come; that is almost inescapable according to estimates of the future financial position, particularly the revenue budgets, for the next five years. I have shared my expectation with Parliament a number of times, and I expect that we will have a number of years of real-terms reductions in the revenue budgets that are available to the Scottish Government until 2014-15, or 2015-16, or sometime around then.
I have a question on another subject that is related to the committee's recently completed inquiry into equal pay and single status. You will recall that when we debated the committee's report in Parliament, you were able to announce that the Government was looking at a capitalisation scheme to help local authorities to meet some of the historic costs of settling claims. Can you update the committee on the progress of that scheme? Are you able to put a number on the size of the scheme? You were reluctant to do that at the time of the debate. How are you getting on with obtaining approval for the scheme from the Treasury?
Mr McLetchie is always keen to know how I am getting on with the Treasury. We have had good discussions and the framework of the scheme is in place, so we have no discussions to hold with the Treasury on the framework and the architecture of the scheme.
The end of the year.
Yes. Once that process has been gone through, I will report to the Parliament on the financial issues that have been associated with it.
To return to the issue of contracting staff numbers in local government, it was suggested—by one of the local government witnesses, I think—that there might be some scope for capitalising redundancy costs where there was a long-term contraction in the number of people employed in a particular service. Is that matter being considered by you and COSLA in your private meetings?
It is certainly an option. I have not discussed the issue with COSLA, although local authorities have approached officials about it. It is a possibility, but it would have to be agreed with the Treasury. As I said during the debate, on the capitalisation issue on equal pay, we cannot expect the Treasury to agree to every scheme and initiative that comes forward. We will endeavour to secure the mechanisms that allow us to be as supportive as possible in any question that is raised with us, but I have to be mindful of the requests that we place in the Treasury to support schemes of that type.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. In response to David McLetchie, you said that you are reluctant to intervene in the on-going discussions on pay settlements. However, do you intend there to be a council tax freeze in 2010-11 and, if so, do you think that that will impact on councils' ability to negotiate pay settlements?
I have made absolutely clear, as part of the Government's priorities, our view that a council tax freeze will help individuals to manage the financial pressures that they face. The Government has funded a freeze for two successive financial years, and it is a proposal for the draft budget that we fund a freeze for a third successive financial year. The Government is providing £70 million to support a council tax freeze. The gross domestic product deflator in the budget is 1.5 per cent. Essentially, the £70 million would equate to a 3.2 per cent increase in the council tax. Councils will get their share of that £70 million, but inflation will be running at less than half that rate, so there is a financial benefit to local authorities in the council tax freeze funding support that we are making available. I am sure that that will help local government to manage the pressures that they wrestle with in relation to public finances.
One of the ways in which local government has dealt with pressures, especially in relation to staff costs, has been to outsource services. We have had evidence that that has sometimes resulted in the voluntary sector employing people on lesser wage rates and lesser conditions. Do you have a view on that?
Mary Mulligan will appreciate that the issue of differential rates of pay between the public sector and the third sector cannot be solved in the short term. The issue has been with us for a considerable time. As members, we have all been lobbied by the voluntary sector on the issue and, if my memory serves me correctly, the committee may even have taken evidence on it. We are taking steps to remedy the situation. We secured a joint agreement between the third sector, as represented by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, COSLA and the Government—in essence, it was on the role of the third sector in public service delivery. Progress is starting to be made on some issues, although I do not for a moment suggest that they are all now resolved.
The witnesses who came to committee, particularly those who spoke about the voluntary sector, characterised the pay negotiations with local authorities as being in complete crisis. Do you share that view?
No—that is not a view that has been expressed to me by people in either the voluntary sector or local government.
You have said that there are continuing discussions with local authorities and the SCVO regarding how to bring about an equivalence of value for the services that are delivered in the voluntary sector. At the moment, the gap between council employees and voluntary sector staff is increasing. Will it continue to increase? How do you stop it increasing? How do we recognise the jobs that are done by those voluntary sector staff who deliver essential services for communities?
I have absolutely no dispute with Mary Mulligan's last point. I have made clear many times the value that the Government attaches—and the value that I attach personally—to the role and work of the voluntary sector. Many vulnerable individuals in our society are enormously dependent on the services that it provides.
My next question is about the awarding of contracts, to both the voluntary sector and social enterprises. Have there been discussions about including a community benefit clause in negotiations for contracts?
In our approach to procurement, community benefit clauses now play a much more significant part in the negotiation of contracts of the type to which you refer. There are a number of issues around the procurement of services on which members of the Parliament have expressed concern with regard to the tendering processes that are used. We have entered into discussions with various players, including those in the care sector, which, through third sector organisations, has made a very good contribution towards strengthening the tendering process to ensure that some of the practices that members are concerned about are tackled as part of the improvements that are being made. For example, there is now a presumption against an auction process in the procurement of some care packages. Those discussions have helped to build confidence in the way in which such issues are tackled within local government.
Before we move on from the issue of what flexibility local government has to deal with the situation, it is worth noting that it was conceded at our round-table session that local government has been concerned over several years about the lack of flexibility that is available to it. However, Professor Stephen Bailey said that, the way that things are going, local government in Scotland is becoming more, not less, dependent on the centre for finance. Our old friend, Henry McLeish, who was also on the panel, said that
I suppose that it is reassuring that Mr McLeish is still at odds with me about some points these days, as there is such vigorous agreement with Mr McLeish on many other questions. I simply leave that as a piece of morning entertainment.
You mentioned earlier that £70 million is available, but the Scottish Government decided to freeze the council tax with it. I do not disagree with that—it is entitled to do that—but is that approach sustainable? Will it hold for this difficult period? Should it be our priority to use that pool of money to freeze the council tax and not in another way when services will be under tremendous strain?
There is always a choice on that question, convener. As the committee is well aware, the £70 million is an implicit part of the Government's draft budget, which is yet to be agreed by Parliament. My argument is that, at the moment, households require a bit of support from the Government, when it can be made available, to protect their incomes, because not only the public sector but individuals and households face many challenges.
Do COSLA and the local authorities accept your argument? What debate and discussion has taken place about the inflation bonus? Do they accept the figures? What do you calculate the inflation bonus that is now available to local authorities to be, and do they agree with that figure?
I have not discussed those numbers with local government.
Do you have the numbers?
I have just given them to the committee. They are crystal clear.
I am talking about the inflation bonus.
On page 15 of the draft budget, I state that the budget is set against
That is money that local authorities now have that they did not have before. Has that figure never been discussed with COSLA or the local authorities? Is there no agreement on that? Have you not passed it on? Did you not think that it would be helpful to have that discussion with them?
I have no reason to have that conversation with COSLA because, at the outset of the spending review, I set out the approach that we would take to the £70 million. At no stage did I say to local government that the money that I made available for the council tax freeze would depend on the rate of inflation at any given time. I could have introduced variability and said that the proportion of the budget for the council tax freeze would be driven by the retail prices index figure at, for example, September each year. If that had been the case, I would have set it at -1.3 per cent this year, but I did not do that. Instead, I put in a fixed sum of £70 million each year because that was the calculation that was driven at the start of the spending review. We have had no reason to re-examine that because I have never cast any doubt on whether local government would receive that amount.
So, in this new relationship with local government, you do not need to discuss such matters and benefits.
As I think I have explained to the committee before, we have a continuing discussion about a variety of the financial issues that we face. I talked to COSLA and the leaders of all its political groupings in advance of publishing the draft budget in September. I listened first of all to their concerns about the financial situation and then secured an agreement from them to work with the Government to deal with the financial pressures that we face as a result of the changes to the spending review picture with which we are all familiar.
I have a final point before we move on. I think that you mentioned in your opening remarks that the budget share available to local government is 34.6 per cent.
I said that it was 34.1 per cent.
The Scottish Parliament information centre figures that we have are 33.9 per cent, which as I understand it—
For which financial year?
2010-11.
The number in front of me, from the Government's perspective, is 34.09 per cent, but we will have a discussion with SPICe about that if necessary. The key point is that I said during the spending review 2008-09 that the Government would reverse the declining share of the Scottish budget that is commanded by local government and increase the proportion. That is precisely what we have done.
I go back to what I said before: the Scottish Government says that it is giving 34.1 per cent of the Scottish budget to local government in 2010-11, but according to SPICe figures it has given local government a reduced figure of 33.9 per cent. For a small local authority such as Inverclyde, that difference could be in excess of £4 million, which is no small matter. Right across local authorities it is no small matter; it is not simply an issue that needs to be discussed with SPICe. As I understand it, the figures to which I referred are SPICe figures and there is a dispute about them between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is no small matter either.
I am certainly happy to get my officials to explain to SPICe where the numbers come from. The basis of the Government's calculation is all the money that goes into local government to fund services—and not all of it comes from the budget line in table 9.01 on page 135 of the budget document.
Surely you are not disputing the SPICe figures.
Yes, I am, because what I think drives the SPICe figures is the £11.85 billion figure on page 135 of the budget document, but it does not represent the total amount of money that goes to local government. The total amount is £11.979 billion, which takes in other resources—for example, from the justice budget to pay for police numbers.
Has there been a change of which I have not been aware? Perhaps there have been changes during the past few years.
No.
Has there been any dispute about how SPICe calculated the share since 2002? Why has it happened now?
I have no idea, but on a like-for-like basis I can give you figures that demonstrate that when this Government came to office, local government was getting 33.39 per cent of the Scottish budget. When this parliamentary session ends, local government will get 34.09 per cent of the budget.
Again, there is a variance in the figures. We can bandy figures about, but we need to resolve the issue. In 2007-08, the SPICe figure was 32.3 per cent. Is that different from the figure that you have just given us?
Yes. I am giving you a like-for-like comparison based on local government's share of the Scottish budget on the basis on which we have always shown the figures during the spending review. You mentioned the 2007-08 figure from SPICe, which is lower than the figure that I am using for that year. In any case, even if SPICe's figures go from 32 per cent to 33.9 per cent while my figures go from 33.3 per cent to 34.1 per cent, the key point is we both agree that local government is getting a rising share of the Scottish budget. That is exactly what the Government said would happen.
We look forward to your resolving the issue for the committee's benefit.
I will be delighted to do so.
Mary Mulligan referred to the council tax freeze. The cabinet secretary and I do not share the same view about the freeze and its effects on local government, but he is right to point out that for the past two financial years his Government has put the freeze in place and seeks to do so in the forthcoming year. However, I suggest that with the great pressures that local government has found itself under in recent years, having been given more and more responsibility through the concordat and so on, and given the fact that in the financial downturn its income from planning, selling off land and many other areas has been reduced, the effects of the freeze have been negative. At what point will you and the Government decide that the freeze is unsustainable and act to ensure that services are not too adversely affected and, indeed, can still be provided?
My only response to that question is that the Government considers the council tax freeze to be sustainable in the 2010-11 draft budget, which is the only proposition before us. The question whether the freeze will be continued beyond that time will be considered in the formulation of the 2011-12 budget, which itself will be heavily informed by the spending review. At that point, we will have to consider our overall financial position, but the outcome of that review will not be available to us until after the UK election in spring 2010.
I do not dispute that some people find the tax a significant burden, but they can be helped in a number of ways. If the freeze led to a reduction in front-line services, that would surely concern not only me and you but all members of the public.
I am not sure whether Scottish Water's headquarters are in Mr Tolson's constituency; if not, they cannot be far away from it. The organisation's performance in improving efficiency has been excellent and it has had clear and effective leadership in that task. However, those savings have been achieved with significant reductions in the number of Scottish Water employees, which brings us back to the question about public sector employment that Mr McLetchie asked at the start of the session.
I appreciate the points that you make. However, as you would understand, I have spoken to senior executives of Scottish Water and I know that it has done more than make savings in the numbers. We are trying to get to the crux of the matter, which is that the organisation has become much more efficient. The number of complaints to members and, I am sure, the cabinet secretary with regard to delivery of Scottish Water's services has gone down significantly. It is seen as being much more efficient, regardless of whether it has trimmed the workforce, although you were right to say that it has.
For the avoidance of doubt, I appreciate and warmly endorse what Scottish Water has been able to achieve. Mr Tolson is right to say that there have been significant improvements in productivity, effectiveness, efficiency and customer handling in Scottish Water. That has been done at a time when charges for households have risen more slowly than the rate of inflation, which is a significant achievement into the bargain.
The committee has taken evidence from Professor Alan Alexander on the single outcome agreement process. He thought that it did not encourage efficiencies and that having a clear regulatory framework would help. Would you like to comment on the evidence that Professor Alexander gave to our inquiry?
I have a different view on single outcome agreements, which are effective in providing the type of focus that is required not just for local government but for all public bodies at local level.
I am grateful for those comments. Finally on efficiency savings, we understand from COSLA that no audit to assess the robustness of local efficiency statements has been carried out to date. We would be interested to know whether you think that that should be a continuing process or whether a more robust analysis of the system is required.
Local government reports on its performance in relation to the efficiency programme through the reporting mechanisms that the Government takes forward. I am a little surprised to hear local government say that there is not enough auditing—most of the time, it tells me that there is too much. Clearly, efficiency issues are material to the best-value approach that Audit Scotland is pursuing.
That is fair enough. The evidence that we received—
Your surprise would be justified, but COSLA was not asking for more audits. There was a discussion with Professor Alexander, who proposed more regulation. He argued that regulation and auditing were the means by which efficiencies were gained in Scottish Water and compared that arrangement with the single outcome agreements, which he thought were failing. One example was that there are no audits of local efficiency statements and a lack of scrutiny in that process. Does that situation not need to be addressed? We all need to be assured that progress is being made to ensure, as your colleague has said, that we get more bang for our buck.
Placing in the Scottish Water context Professor Alexander's proposition that we can achieve all those things through regulation, I believe that it ignores the effectiveness of the leadership and workforce contribution to improving the organisation's efficiency. It was not just regulation that delivered the improvement in Scottish Water's performance; it was also the leadership of the management, the board and the chairman, and the active contribution of the workforce to that process.
We are focusing on local efficiency agreements. Is there not a case for ensuring that they are robust and that progress is being made? How do we measure that?
I thought that my answer to Mr Tolson a moment ago dealt with that point. Audit Scotland assesses the performance of local authorities. It has done the best value 1 exercise and is preparing for the best value 2 process, and the efficiency agenda is material to the issues that Audit Scotland considers in that respect.
Cabinet secretary, it has been put to us that the current business gateway contracts are too rigid to allow people to cope properly or successfully with the results of the recession. Do you have any comments on that?
Obviously, I would listen carefully to any evidence of that sort because we must ensure that the business gateway services are appropriate for the times and people's requirements. Clearly, given the circumstances that we are in, companies and the type of advice that they require will change. My priority would be to ensure that the advice that is available through the business gateway is appropriate to people's needs. If there is an issue about that, I would be happy to consider it.
It is not something that has been raised elsewhere, then.
It is something that has been raised with me by the Federation of Small Businesses, and it is part of the discussions that I am having with the FSB. Obviously, I am happy to take any further evidence from the committee in that respect.
Have you had an opportunity to consider what benefits have actually accrued from the devolution of the local economic development function to local authorities? Are they the ones that were expected?
What has become clear to me, when I look at how local authorities have responded to the economic situation, is that quite a number of local authorities—Patricia Ferguson will be familiar with this from her representation of the city of Glasgow—have themselves formulated economic recovery plans that take into account the fact that some of the issues around asset realisation, to which Mr Tolson referred, are not quite what people expected. Planning gain has most definitely not been what was expected.
The cabinet secretary is correct to identify my interest in the city of Glasgow. The committee has received evidence on the function outwith the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh—I think that it was described as a Cinderella function. We heard that the devolution of the function perhaps has not had the same outcome as it has in cities such as Edinburgh and Glasgow. Have you received similar information?
That information has not been shared with me, but I am happy to consider it from the committee.
My final question is slightly at a tangent, although it is based on something that the cabinet secretary has just said. The committee has taken a particular interest in the town centre regeneration fund, as have I. We had hoped that the second tranche of funding would be announced at the end of October, but the date became the beginning of November. I do not think that we have a date now, although some time later in November has been mentioned. I am not particularly concerned about that although, obviously, the sooner we get the announcement, the better. I understand that the dates can slip and that issues can arise about when announcements are properly made. However, given that the money is to be expended prior to the end of the current financial year and that bidders might not know whether they have been successful until the end of November or thereabouts, have you discussed with Mr Neil a possible extension for bidders, to allow them to accommodate what will be a curtailed timeframe for their projects?
Patricia Ferguson makes a fair point, particularly in relation to the second tranche of applicants. There is perhaps a different consideration in relation to the first tranche. However, it is an issue that Mr Neil and I have begun to explore. We will certainly continue to consider it and will report to Parliament accordingly.
I will follow that up, although I do not necessarily want the cabinet secretary to respond. It would be helpful if successful bidders could be given an indication of when they will receive the funding, because that might well alter their capabilities.
That is a completely reasonable point, which Mr Neil and I are actively considering.
Good morning. I have three lines of questioning, the first of which goes back to David McLetchie's question on the 6,700 jobs that witnesses on an earlier panel indicated have been lost from local government in the past two years. I understand that that figure was gleaned from the Scottish Government's statistics. The figure may also relate to the jobs that have been transferred in the past two years from local government to contracted-out services or limited liability partnerships, as it seems to be the fashion in particular local authorities to transfer large tranches of staff to arm's-length organisations. Does the cabinet secretary wish to comment on that? Will he give an assurance that the Scottish Government will monitor the situation in the future? There seem to be a large number of job losses in local government, but they might not be job losses at all—they might be jobs that have been transferred over to other agencies or partnerships that are delivering the same services.
On Mr Wilson's first point, it is a statement of fact that transfers will account for some of the difference to which Mr McLetchie referred. On his second point, the Government publishes public sector employment statistics quarterly. We will continue to report those and we have started to report an additional series of statistics on employment within public bodies at a very disaggregated level, so it is possible to see the patterns of public sector employment down to a very detailed level.
My second line of questioning is on the issues that were raised by Councillor Cook when he gave evidence to the committee on behalf of COSLA. He indicated that, due to the economic circumstances in which local authorities find themselves, they may—I emphasise "may"—wish to seek a review or revision of the existing concordat. Have there been approaches from COSLA to undertake such a review or revision of the concordat?
I understand that, at its convention in June, COSLA considered the concordat and reaffirmed its view that it was a desirable and effective basis for a relationship with the Government. I am not aware of any desire to move beyond that position, which was agreed by the COSLA convention, which I think is representative of all local authorities.
Finally, I draw the cabinet secretary's attention to an article that appeared in a Sunday newspaper on the tax increment finance scheme that has been suggested. The local authority business growth incentive scheme is also being discussed. What stage are we at on those two schemes? Our information is that there have been some developments on tax increment finance at Leith, in Edinburgh. Have there been approaches from other local authorities? How would the tax incentive finance scheme operate in relation to any borrowing or spending by local authorities under the scheme?
There have been discussions with local government about the model for tax increment financing. Essentially, the model is predicated on the definition of a particular area—let us say, for illustrative purposes, the Edinburgh waterfront—as an area where a development agreement is put in place and initiatives are taken to generate new economic activities that do not involve a displacement of economic activities from other parts of the locality. Within that system, non-domestic rates would be reserved and a separate, distinctive financial proposition could be developed that would involve borrowing on the strength of the revenue flow coming out of that activity in that defined area.
Let us go back to the theory that Councillor Cook and others have put forward, which is that the bigger issue is not what local authorities get through the settlement but what we increasingly expect from local authorities and what they do. That was a theme throughout the evidence that the committee took. There is a discussion within local government circles about the fact that, in the current financial crisis, local authorities are retreating to their statutory requirements. Councillor Cook's comments have been repeated by John Wilson. Down the line, councils will have to do less than they are currently doing. What is your view on that?
We are entering a challenging period for public finances. For well over a year, I have shared with Parliament my expectation that, after 10 years of above-inflation increases in public expenditure in Scotland, there will be a number of years in which we will see real-terms reductions in public spending in Scotland. As I said in answer to an earlier question from Mr McLetchie, I expect that to continue until around 2014-15 or 2015-16.
What will that mean for the role of the Parliament? Will we have a view on what needs to be provided on a statutory basis, or will that be left to local authorities? As I understand it, there are certain services that local authorities are not statutorily required to provide. That means that a council that is faced with a requirement to deliver the business bonus, the council tax freeze and so on will look at services such as pre-five education and decide that that is where the hit must take place. Surely Parliament should have a view on that. That should not be left up to individual councils, should it?
Parliament's position on statutory services could not be clearer. If it says in statute that something has to happen, it has to happen. There is no argument about that whatsoever.
The logical conclusion is that the services that are not statutory are up for grabs. If we believe the talk, Aberdeen City Council is ahead of other local authorities in dealing with all the difficult situations that have arisen as a result of the financial crisis. It is retreating to statutory obligations and cutting other services as a consequence. Is that the future of local government in Scotland?
I do not think, by any stretch of the imagination, that local government will go through this period providing only statutory services. I do not believe that for a moment. I cannot see why that would be the case.
Have you or your officials discussed with COSLA the trend that I have outlined? From the evidence that we have heard, I know that certain discussions are taking place.
I discuss with COSLA the challenges of the forthcoming financial climate. Of course I do that. That is an issue that we have to wrestle with.
But have you discussed the issue of what councils are statutorily obliged to provide? Have you set limits in and around that issue?
I am duty bound to advise councils of their statutory responsibilities and—
And only their statutory responsibilities.
In a sense, that is where the relationship between national and local government comes in. We are in a much healthier position today than we were before. The suggestion that local government will provide only statutory services misses the point about the role of local government. Local government, by virtue of legislation that we have passed in this Parliament, has wide and general responsibilities for community wellbeing and community enhancement, which are not deliverable only through statutory force; they are part of the dialogue that goes on between national and local government and between local government and the local electorate.
You and your officials would recognise that a discussion is taking place within local government about the statutory boundaries and whether councils should retreat to them. Michael Cook has also told us that the concordat needs to be revisited. Perhaps we need to get representatives from COSLA and you and your officials around the table in order to get some clarity on the issue.
I detect no enthusiasm in local government for providing only statutory services. Councils want to do much more than they are obliged to do by statute, and they do that.
As there are no further questions, I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—