Subordinate Legislation
Common Agricultural Policy Single Farm Payment and Support Schemes (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/414)
Agenda items 2 and 3 relate to the Common Agricultural Policy Single Farm Payment and Support Schemes (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/414). The relevant paper is with the committee papers that were sent out. Members will remember the procedure from our most recent meeting. Item 2 will be a question-and-answer session with the minister and his officials. Item 3 will involve the moving of the motion and the formal debate. I invite the cabinet secretary to introduce his supporting officials. If he wishes to make an opening statement, I ask him to keep it to five minutes.
As if by magic, new officials have appeared alongside me. On my left is Ingrid Clayden, who is head of the rural development division, and on my right is Sandy McNeil, who is the rural directorate's solicitor.
My opening comments will be brief. I remind the committee that the Scotland rural development programme is with Europe as we speak. After the election of the new Government in May, I was appointed as Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment in mid May. We had only a fortnight or so before the programme had to be submitted to Europe. After getting a short extension, we managed to submit the programme—which will be worth £1.6 billion to Scotland over the next seven years—to Europe on 12 June.
It is clear that the previous Government, in conjunction with stakeholders around Scotland, put a great deal of work into the programme. It is a highly ambitious programme, which we are convinced will provide an enormous boost for our rural economy, including our primary producers—our farmers.
As regards voluntary modulation, the Government had to strike a balance to ensure that the programme, which had been formulated over several years, was adequately funded to enable it to be effective in achieving its objectives. We also had to be conscious of the impact on our farmers of the reductions in single farm payments that would result from voluntary modulation.
My view as cabinet secretary is that we struck the right balance. Our programme was welcomed by a cross-section of our rural industries, including farming organisations. There were people who would have preferred lower rates of modulation, just as there were those who sought higher rates of modulation. Given the time pressures that we faced, we had to reach a judgment. I feel that we made the right judgment on the rates of voluntary modulation.
Thank you. As the motion to annul is in Mike Rumbles's name, I ask him to put the first questions.
I have enough to say in the debate and am conscious of time, so I am happy not to ask questions.
Cabinet secretary, could you tell us what would be the likely consequences were the regulations to be annulled? What would the effect be on, for example, the timing and implementation of the rural stewardship scheme and the LFAS payments?
As part of submitting the rural development programme on 12 June, we had to provide the rates that we had chosen for voluntary modulation. They are with the European Commission—they are part of the document and cannot be separated from it. If the rates were to change through the regulations being annulled, we would have to withdraw the rural development programme and resubmit it with new rates after concluding what those new rates should be. That would substantially delay the programme, which is on target to come into play in early 2008. The European Commission has until the end of the year to give the go-ahead, because the deadline is six months from the date of submission. We hope, of course, to have the green light before then, but that is the timescale to which we are working.
Annulment of the regulations would lead to a substantial delay in implementing the £1.6 billion rural development programme and everything that is associated with it. It would also lead to problems with single farm payments. Because the purpose of the regulations is to seek the Parliament's permission to take the voluntary modulation elements into account with the single farm payments that are due at the end of the year, those, in turn, would also be delayed.
So annulling the regulations would not be particularly helpful, given the cash-flow problems that the industry faces at the moment.
I have spoken personally to hundreds if not thousands of farmers over the past four months and have had no request to change the rates of voluntary modulation, despite the fact that many may have preferred lower rates. The last thing that they would like to hear of now is any delay in the single farm payments. Indeed, that applies to the wider rural community. Any further delay in the whole programme is an issue not just for the farming community, because the programme has already been delayed.
The present modulation rate is 9 per cent. What was the rate in the original plan? Have you taken over the original plan from Ross Finnie or have you modified it in any way?
The rural development programme as submitted to Brussels emanates from the rural development strategy that Scotland had to submit to Brussels prior to submitting the programme. That strategy laid out the general objectives for what we are trying to achieve within rural Scotland. It is a large document, but I am sure that you will get a copy from the Scottish Parliament information centre if you want to have a look at it. It is an interesting document.
The previous Administration worked with stakeholders on the rural development strategy, which was then converted into the programme. A lot of work was put into costing the programme so that it could achieve its objectives. A balance has to be struck in relation to how to fund the programme. The costings were in place when we came into office. We could have changed them had we so wished, but I can only reiterate to the committee that, when the new Government was elected in May, we had two or three weeks to get the rural development programme to Brussels. Reopening it in any major fashion would have led to a huge delay, and we were not prepared to do that.
To fund the costings that were estimated at the time would have required a greater level of voluntary modulation than the level that we have proposed. To get around that, we injected a further £70 million from central sources in the Government's budget into the seven-year programme. That is £70 million over the seven years of the programme. That figure represents £10 million for the one additional measure that we put into the programme, which was a new entrants scheme—that was one change that we wanted to make within the limited timescale that we had—and £60 million to help us to keep the rates of voluntary modulation to a minimum.
As I have had no further indication of questions, we will move to the debate on the motion to annul the regulations. As I indicated earlier, the motion was lodged by Mike Rumbles. The standing orders allow up to 90 minutes for the debate, but there is no way that I am going to allow 90 minutes for it.
I invite Mike Rumbles to speak to and move motion S3M-458. Could you keep your opening speech to three or four minutes?
It will be slightly longer than that.
How much longer?
A maximum of five minutes.
Okay. Try to keep it to that.
Thanks, convener. At the previous committee meeting, I moved a motion to oppose the creation by the Government of a new criminal offence for farmers who make errors in their paperwork. Today, we face a different issue. I have again lodged a motion to oppose another set of regulations from the Government that in my opinion unduly penalise our farmers. Unfortunately, these regulations seem to be setting an unwelcome trend.
These regulations come to us as a result of the Government's rural development programme, which involves an investment of approximately £1.6 billion over six years. To help to pay for the programme, the Government has decided to reduce still further the payments that go directly to our farmers.
The Scottish National Party's manifesto stated:
"We will pro-actively act to safeguard agriculture support for Scotland's farmers".
I do not know how the action of the Government to reduce the direct support that is available to our farmers squares with that statement. Perhaps Richard Lochhead could address that point during the debate.
On 31 May, the minister outlined the rural development programme to Parliament in a subject debate—on which, of course, there was no vote. Incidentally, of the £1.6 billion in the rural development programme, the Scottish Parliament information centre can identify only where £1.2 billion is being spent. The minister has so far left unpublished about £400 million of Government spending, so we are cutting the direct budget to our farmers without knowing where the money is going. Perhaps the minister can enlighten us during the debate and agree to make available the detailed budget for the whole of the rural development programme.
I will quote from the very short briefing on the matter that committee members received from NFU Scotland. It states:
"There has already been lengthy and intense debate on the appropriate rate of voluntary modulation. Obviously, farmers would like as low a rate as possible, but that debate was concluded in June this year when the SRDP was announced".
I have to say that the briefing is factually incorrect. There has not been anything like a "lengthy and intense debate" on modulation. The debate certainly was not concluded in June—it was not done and dusted.
The committee has a public duty to examine the proposals now. We are not and should never be a rubber stamp for the Government; it is our job to ensure that proper scrutiny is undertaken.
Sadly, not only has NFU Scotland got it wrong about the extent and timing of the debate that has taken place, it does not seem to appreciate the role of Parliament. It has a legitimate concern that the step that I propose in the motion may, as John Scott also suggested, delay payments to our farmers. However, I would not be moving the motion if I believed that that was even a remote possibility.
The EU was concerned about the detail of the rural development programme—the rate of voluntary modulation is not a real concern for it and could easily be amended within the timeframe. The Government has until the 40-day date is reached on 31 October to do the right thing. It should and could do that. It is simply a matter of finding the money from the block grant rather than directly from our farmers.
I am pleased that I am an avid reader of The Press and Journal, because I think that committee members should be aware of a report on modulation in this morning's edition. We all know that compulsory modulation is set to rise from 5 per cent to 6 per cent. According to The Press and Journal, a report that is due to be published in November by the EU agriculture commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, will propose increasing the rate of compulsory modulation to 13 per cent by 2013. If that happens, compulsory and voluntary modulation will be at 22 per cent, which will confirm the worst fears of the industry.
We have no control in the Parliament over compulsory modulation, but we do have control over the level of the Government's voluntary modulation. The EU wants to increase compulsory modulation because hardly any countries in Europe have voluntary modulation. We surely cannot add to the burdens that are being faced by our farmers.
I will turn briefly to the debate in the Parliament on 31 May. I can do no better than include quotes from three speeches that were made during that brief debate. John Scott set the scene—I commend him for it—when he said:
"Currently, we have a total of a 10 per cent reduction in support for Scottish farmers through modulation. However, the minister has decided to increase modulation … the more he increases the level of voluntary modulation, the more he reduces the profitability of Scottish farmers. Indeed, the NFUS has calculated that every 5 per cent increase in modulation reduces net farm incomes by 20 per cent … there is a real danger that the most likely effect of significant increases in voluntary modulation will be to put farmers' businesses under further threat."
John went on to say:
"Today's announcement, however, will bring about an increase of, effectively, 5 per cent … which will reduce net farm incomes by 20 per cent, bringing them down to just over £8,000. That is still too great an increase in voluntary modulation."
Well done, John.
I said in the debate:
"The minister has announced the levels of modulation—or, in layman's terms, cuts—for the direct payments to our farmers that help to fund that programme. Those cuts take the level of modulation from 5 per cent to nearly double that—9 per cent … This is a hugely controversial issue. Indeed … the SNP MEP Alyn Smith said:
"I can see absolutely no need for voluntary modulation in Scotland."
I continued further on:
"What happened to the promise in the SNP's manifesto that an SNP Government would force deductions through voluntary modulation only when cash for the programme could not be found from other sources?"—[Official Report, 31 May; c 259-62.]
To paraphrase my other question of 31 May, has Richard Lochhead hit the farming community because he cannot get enough cash from the Government?
I also said in the debate of 31 May that how Richard Lochhead had proceeded was no way to conduct our affairs in Parliament because we did not have a parliamentary vote on his proposals.
My final quote from the debate of 31 May is from Rhona Brankin, representing the Labour Party, who said:
"I welcome the opportunity to debate Scotland's rural development programme. Frankly, however, I am disgusted this morning because we are having only a subject debate, with no opportunity to take a vote."—[Official Report, 31 May; c 255.]
We on this committee now have the opportunity to take a vote. I hope that all committee members, but John Scott in particular, will do the right thing, particularly in the light of the new information about modulation levels possibly being 22 per cent, and reject the minister's proposal.
I move,
That the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Common Agricultural Policy Single Farm Payment and Support Schemes (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/414).
And, like magic, I move to John Scott, to be followed by Jamie Hepburn.
I was not expecting to say much in this debate, but I must say that Mike Rumbles has raised important points. He is correct to record what I said in the debate on 31 May. I stand by what I said because the facts to which I referred are the case.
Regrettably, however, although I would have preferred the minister to set a lower rate of modulation, we are where we are. Mike Rumbles said that there would be no risk in not going ahead with the payments, but I do not believe that the industry would thank us, given its current state, if we rejected the regulations.
Mike Rumbles also said that the debate on levels of voluntary modulation has not been going on for any length of time. Sadly, he is wrong about that because the debate has being going on for a great length of time. It is regrettable that the previous Administration could not come to a view on what the level should be, which is why the current schemes are underfunded and why work has not been going ahead.
On Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel's proposals on compulsory modulation, as Mike Rumbles will be well aware, that is really a matter for United Kingdom ministers. Indeed, it is certainly a matter for another day.
The minister and the industry have made it clear to me—it is as plain as a pikestaff—what the consequences would be of not pressing ahead with the scheme, albeit with its imperfections, which I was the first to acknowledge and criticise. However, regrettably, it is the "only game in town", to use a phrase of one of Mike Rumbles's old colleagues, George Lyon. If we do not agree the regulations, we would be doing a disservice to the industry that would be far greater in its effect than any possible benefit that Mike Rumbles can envisage arising from our rejecting the regulations.
Jamie Hepburn is next, to be followed by Bill Wilson. I ask members to keep their speeches to three minutes.
Certainly, convener. I doubt that I will take three minutes.
I am sure that Mike Rumbles is well intentioned in lodging the motion that is before us, just as he was well intentioned when he lodged a similar motion at our previous meeting. However, given what the cabinet secretary has told us, and given that the NFUS appears to agree that failure to approve the regulations would put the whole rural development programme at risk, we must think hard before voting on the matter.
Mike Rumbles asks how the Government is keeping to the manifesto commitments that he mentioned. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is more than capable of answering the question, but it strikes me that the regulations are an example of how the Government is keeping to its commitments. If we fail to approve the regulations, support for the farming industry will be jeopardised, as the cabinet secretary's answer to John Scott's question clearly indicated; we would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
It is especially telling that, since he took up his post, the issue of lower rates for voluntary modulation has not once been raised with the cabinet secretary by farmers to whom he has spoken. We should bear in mind that the proposed rates are significantly more generous than those that were pursued by the previous Administration, under the direction of a Liberal Democrat minister. I mention that in order to jog some memories.
We must approve the SSI that is before us, especially given what the NFUS has told us. The NFUS is the body that speaks for farmers and it is concerned that rejecting the regulations would cause unnecessary delays and jeopardise the industry. We should go with what not only the cabinet secretary but the NFUS is telling us.
Mike Rumbles argues that we have no control over compulsory modulation, which is fair enough. He is concerned that if compulsory modulation rises significantly, the combined effect of compulsory and voluntary modulation may be harmful to farmers. If compulsory modulation rises significantly, might the minister re-examine the levels for voluntary modulation? Presumably that is an acceptable option.
It has been suggested that voluntary modulation will have the effect of removing finance from farmers. Can the minister confirm whether farmers will be able to apply for money from the voluntary modulation system in order to diversify their livelihoods? Given the present problems with foot-and-mouth, some farmers might welcome the opportunity to do that, to give them greater security and possible future income.
I turn to Mike Rumbles's comments on the NFUS briefing. Whether the NFUS is technically correct in saying that there has been a long debate on the issue, rather than a short or medium-sized debate, is irrelevant. The important point in the briefing is that farmers are under immense pressure. We have already heard about the psychological pressure to which sheep and hill farmers are subject. Surely it would be barbarous and almost inhuman for us to add extra uncertainty at this point. If people are struggling, as they are, it would be extremely unfair for us to add an extra level of uncertainty. I agree entirely with Jamie Hepburn that we should approve the regulations.
I am grateful to Mike Rumbles for lodging the motion so that we can have a proper debate on the issue. I agree that it should have been debated and voted on properly after the election. That did not happen, and now it is a case of take it or leave it.
Labour members would not have proposed the measures that are before the committee. In the chamber, we made it clear that we would have gone further. We suggested that an opportunity to go for more staged voluntary modulation had been missed. We wanted to see more flexibility and to change the way in which we support not just our farming communities but our wider rural communities. I agree strongly with the points that Bill Wilson made about diversification: more opportunity for that should have been built into the measures. There should also have been more creative support for farmers who do not currently receive support. The support that we are discussing is for farmers who are already in the system. If we are to have more local food procurement, there should be more flexibility.
We would have opted for a different system, and we have criticisms of what the minister has done, but a statutory instrument is now before us. The regulations cannot be amended, and we do not support their rejection by the means that Mike Rumbles is proposing. We are where we are.
We favour a more integrated approach to public benefit. When we debate the budget later in the year, we will look at how the money has been spent, as we know that environmental organisations are concerned that some agri-environment schemes are underfunded. However, today we have a choice. We are being invited to reject the regulations, but we believe that that would make life much harder for the farming community, which is expecting the regulations to come into force. The farming community is facing extremely difficult times and we would not want to call into uncertainty the rural development programme, which is waiting for approval in Brussels. Although we do not support the minister's proposals 100 per cent, we certainly do not want to jeopardise the package.
I invite the cabinet secretary to respond to the points that have been made. Please keep it as brief as possible, and I remind you that officials may not participate in this part of our proceedings.
Is this in addition to summing up at the end?
This is your response—this is it.
That is fine. I will do my best to respond to the points that have been made. There are a few myths that need to be cleared up. This is a £1.6 billion rural development programme running from 2007 to 2013. I have looked at the list of measures under the four axes of the programme and, over and above the single farm payment that farmers will continue to receive, it is difficult to find many schemes that are funded out of the rest of the £1.6 billion that farmers cannot apply for. I appeal to the committee, and in particular to Mike Rumbles, to recognise that the proposals are not about denying public support to the farming community. The farming community was involved in many of the discussions and it supports many of the measures that have been funded from throughout the £1.6 billion programme, not just from the £216 million that has been diverted through voluntary modulation.
I will now address the issue of debates and votes. I had a quick look at what happened in the Parliament when the original voluntary modulation was announced under Ross Finnie, the previous Minister for Environment and Rural Development. The modulation rates that he announced were 3.5 per cent in 2005 and 4.5 per cent in 2006. There was no vote on that in the Parliament. Perhaps Michael Rumbles will correct me if I am wrong, but I looked for and could not find any demand for a debate or vote by him a few years ago. Given the former Minister for Environment and Rural Development's implementation of a 4.5 per cent voluntary modulation rate, compared with our 2007 modulation rate of 5 per cent—only 0.5 per cent more—I am surprised that Michael Rumbles thinks that there is now a much stronger case for a vote and debate in the Parliament this time compared with last time, when he did not make similar demands.
On the voluntary modulation rates that are included in the rural development programme, I point out that Michael Rumbles has been selective regarding the debate on the matter in Parliament. Bill Wilson makes a good point about what I said during that debate—it was either in an intervention or in my speech. I said then that if the EU proposed to increase the compulsory modulation rates, we would have flexibility to revisit the rates that we submitted under the programme and to reduce the voluntary element to reflect the increase in the compulsory element. I reiterate that point, which I have made in Parliament in the past. I do so in particular for Michael Rumbles, who I hope can now accept that that option is available to the Parliament to implement if we so wish.
Michael Rumbles thinks that the Scottish Government is not contributing enough towards the £1.6 billion. We are contributing 71 per cent of the budget. I do not have the figures for other EU member states or the terms of their contributions, but I am sure that he will find that the European element of other countries' rural development programmes is greater, because their Governments secured better rural development funding deals for their countries in the 1990s. We did not have that comfort in Great Britain, where the UK Government secured a miserable share of European funding for rural development in Scotland. The Scottish Government—I include the previous Scottish Government, to be fair—took the brave decision to increase the central element of the overall pot to make up for the loss of the European element. Of the £1.6 billion, Europe is currently contributing 8 per cent and the Scottish Government is contributing 71 per cent, with £216 million coming from voluntary modulation, which can of course be largely recycled to the farmers out of many of the other schemes that are available. It is important to make that point.
Finally, let me address some of the valid points that Sarah Boyack made. We could have had greater debate in Parliament if we had not had just three weeks in which to submit the programme to Brussels. However, my decision largely reflected the two years' debate that had taken place preceding that. As Sarah Boyack outlined, we are all trying to achieve the same objectives for rural Scotland and for our farmers. We want to give them flexibility and new opportunities to diversify into new areas so that they can add value to their existing practices and we also want to help the food sector. I believe that those objectives will be achieved by the programme that we have submitted.
The Labour Party wanted to increase voluntary modulation to 15 per cent as opposed to the 9 per cent that the Government proposed. Although that would have provided the programme with a few million pounds more, we have tried to replicate that by increasing the central element to ensure that there is no overall decline in the budget. I think that we have struck the correct balance. The balance has been welcomed not just by the farmers but by a wide range of rural interests—this affects all our rural industries including forestry and food production—as well as the primary producers. We need to take that into account.
The rural development programme is a major package that could add huge value to the rural economy over the next six to seven years. I ask the committee to reject the motion to annul the regulations so that we can allow that progress to proceed as soon as possible. The Government and the Parliament need to give our farmers as much certainty as possible at a time when, unfortunately, they face great uncertainty due to the foot-and-mouth outbreak and the other pressures, such as high cereal prices, that are impacting on the rural economy.
I invite Mike Rumbles to wind up the debate. He should take no more than three minutes.
John Scott said that he stands by what he said in Parliament. I remind him that he said:
"That is still too great an increase in voluntary modulation."—[Official Report, 31 May 2007; c 260.]
However, John Scott has said today that he will still vote for that increase. He is still content—to use his own words—to cut farmers' incomes to about £8,000 a year. That is what he will do today.
I point out to Jamie Hepburn that, whereas Ross Finnie held voluntary modulation to 5 per cent, Richard Lochhead is nearly doubling the level to 9 per cent. Those are the facts of the matter.
I respect Bill Wilson's position but, without meaning to be too hard on his comments, it seems perverse to argue that farmers' incomes are under threat so we should reduce their income further by voting against the motion. Like John Scott and the other SNP members, Bill Wilson seems to be content to see that happen.
I felt that the minister—if this is not the wrong phrase—shot his fox today. In response to Jamie Hepburn's question—we need more such questions, Jamie—he confirmed that he could indeed revisit the level of voluntary modulation. That is what I am asking for. The minister has just said that that is what he would like to do if the level of compulsory modulation increases. Therefore, he has shot down in flames his own argument that voluntary modulation is set in stone and cannot be changed. The debate has been a great use of the committee's time because it has exposed such fallacious arguments. That is one of the most ridiculous arguments that I have heard. The minister said that he could change the level of voluntary modulation as it is not set in stone.
I respect the Labour Party position, which has consistently argued for a higher rise in the level of voluntary modulation. I respect that view, although I do not agree with it. However, I do not respect those other people who, having said that the level was wrong and that we should not proceed with it, will now vote for it. That is wrong in any circumstances. As committee members, we should stand up for what we believe in and what we believe is right and do the right thing.
I press the motion.
The question is, that motion S3M-458, in the name of Mike Rumbles, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Against
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance. They are free to leave now if they so wish.
I advise the committee that we will break for five minutes. Members should be back for 11.25, as I will resume proceedings exactly at 11.25.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I remind members that we are still in the middle of agenda item 3, although we have finished the debate on the motion. We require to make a short report to Parliament, which will record the outcome of the debate. It can include recommendations, if members wish to include any. The draft report can be cleared for publication by a circulated e-mail, which is preferable, if members make no recommendations. Alternatively, it can be circulated for consideration at the next committee meeting—we still have time for that. The former option is probably the one that we will choose, given that the motion to annul has been disagreed to. I assume that, as well as being named as the member who lodged the motion to annul, Mike Rumbles wishes to record his strong opposition to the Common Agricultural Policy Single Farm Payment and Support Schemes (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007.
That would be helpful. I am sure that committee members agree that it was good that the minister made it clear that if compulsory modulation increases, he will be more than willing to consider reducing voluntary modulation. That is an important point.
You cannot assume that that is the view of the entire committee.
We can note that the cabinet secretary indicated that point in response to a question, which is not to say that the committee necessarily agrees. We are putting the point on record. We will circulate the draft report by e-mail for further comments. Is that okay with everybody?
Members indicated agreement.
Plant Protection Products (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2007<br />(SSI 2007/410)<br />Plant Health (Scotland) Amendment Order 2007 (SSI 2007/415)
Plant Health (Phytophthora ramorum) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2007<br />(SSI 2007/416)<br />Seed Potatoes (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/418)
Zoonoses (Monitoring) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/420)<br />Porcine Semen (Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/421)
Agenda item 4 is subordinate legislation. No member has raised any concerns about the instruments and no motions to annul have been lodged, not even by Mike Rumbles.
Wait until the next meeting.
Do members wish to make any points on the instruments?
No.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has made no comments on the instruments. In that case, do we agree not to make any recommendations on the instruments?
Members indicated agreement.