Official Report 199KB pdf
Good afternoon, and welcome to the 12th meeting of the European and External Relations Committee this year. We have received apologies from Dennis Canavan, who is at the Enterprise and Culture Committee, and Gordon Jackson, who is likely to be late. I welcome a new addition to the clerking team, Gerry McInally.
We will be the judge of that.
We continue consideration of the European Commission's green paper on a sustainable, competitive and secure energy policy. Members will recall that we agreed to respond to the energy efficiency section of the green paper—specifically on issues relating to heating, finance, public procurement and energy efficiency trading—and to hold a short inquiry. We took oral evidence on 23 May and at last week's meeting, and two Scottish Executive officials will give us evidence this afternoon, at our final session. Jane Morgan, who is head of the energy and telecommunications division, and Trudy Nicolson, who is head of the energy efficiency unit, are here to answer members' questions. I ask members to remember that, as officials, the witnesses cannot address any questions of a political nature. However, I am sure that the clerks will take note of any such questions and that we shall ask the appropriate minister to respond.
I begin with a general question. How will the Executive's strategy fit alongside or work in partnership with a European strategy on energy?
First, I wish to say that I started my current job last week so, although I have been mugging up hard, I am sure that I shall ask Trudy Nicolson to assist me on a number of occasions.
When we took evidence last week, we discussed the idea of some kind of energy regulator in Europe to ensure that there is a level playing field. We were thinking about some of the difficulties that we experienced with energy supplies throughout Europe last winter. Would that be compatible with what the Executive is thinking?
It depends what you mean. Although the Executive may have a dialogue with the Department of Trade and Industry on the regulation of markets, it is a reserved matter. Our role is much more about the promotion of energy efficiency and, more widely, the promotion of the industries in an economic development sense. I am not clear what your proposal is, but it is not a matter on which the Executive would have a policy.
Okay. I will not explore that issue further.
I am aware of some of the comments that have been made on that. We in the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department do not administer the central heating programmes directly, but obviously we are aware of them and we want to ensure that they are compatible with energy efficiency. The general view is that central heating is a more energy efficient form of heating than many others. I have to confess that I am not sure whether we have precise evidence on that.
The fuel poverty programmes that operate in Scotland provide a package of support that includes a range of energy efficiency measures, such as cavity wall insulation and loft insulation. In our written evidence, we state that in 2004-05 the central heating programme resulted in an annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of approximately 41,500 tonnes. The fuel poverty programmes coupled with the energy efficiency measures lead to energy efficiency. We are considering a pilot scheme for small-scale renewables, to try to encourage the use of a cleaner source of energy.
I take it that the pilot will run over a period of time.
Yes. We will gather data over a two-year period and, if it is going well, we will roll it out.
I think that our evidence refers to predictions, so we might need to check the figures. Obviously, the evidence is accumulated after the event. Perhaps we will get back to you on that.
I presume that you have a copy of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning's response to the committee, in which he states:
The Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust perform the same function, but for different sectors. The Carbon Trust provides advice largely to the business sector and public sector estates and buildings, whereas the Energy Saving Trust provides help and support largely to domestic users and to public sector housing. The Energy Saving Trust is much more about providing support and advice on behavioural changes that people can make in their homes to reduce their energy consumption and be more energy efficient.
We have no influence on the matter, but it seems that companies such as Scottish Gas, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy offer such services as well. There is a degree of overlap.
I do not know. We can certainly search for the figure, which we have somewhere, on how much of the emissions comes from transport and how much comes from household use. I will come back to that in a moment.
I do not need that answer today; I can find it myself. My real point is that it is pretty meaningless to provide that figure without reference to the overall factors. Some kind of comparison would have been useful.
Transport is always a difficult issue, but the energy efficiency strategy will focus, among other things, on influencing behavioural change in the transport choices that people make. For flights and big infrastructure projects, there is a balance to be struck between economic development and developing a sustainable economy. The national transport strategy will look at that side of things. However, the Scottish climate change programme has a commitment to examine the carbon proofing of all policies, so it will consider the net effect, both positive and negative, of policy. Instead of just counting the carbon savings of carbon reduction policies, it will look at all policies across the board. That work is on-going.
I want to deal with some more general points, so I apologise if we seem to be jumping around the issues. Has the Executive made any long-term projections on Scotland's energy requirements? How do those fit in with the proposals in the Commission's green paper?
I think that I am right in saying—Trudy Nicolson will correct me if I am wrong—that we have commissioned a piece of research to examine that and other issues.
Volume 5 of the Scottish energy study series will include projections to 2050. We are currently deciding on the mix of projections that should be included.
Essentially, the study will consider different scenarios rather than provide predictions.
We all understand that it is important to have long-term planning.
I am not sure that I can answer this anyway, but is the question about the proportion of energy that is generated here?
How important is the electricity generation industry to the Scottish economy? I presume that the issue will be dealt with somewhere in the proposed study. How many jobs are involved in electricity generation? What is the industry worth to the Scottish economy?
I am not sure if we can break down the information specifically for electricity generation. We will need to get back to the committee on that.
Sorry, this must be very difficult for you if you have just come into the job.
We had expected questions specifically on energy efficiency.
I am sorry, but I was just going by the questions on our briefing paper. I will not pursue the issue in that case.
Are you finished John?
I will ask one more question on the same theme. We have a growing population and a growing economy, and we hope that both will go on growing. Notwithstanding energy efficiency, is it not likely that demand for energy—specifically electricity—will also go on growing?
That is difficult to say. We are considering different scenarios to inform our view of how likely that is. We have not finalised the scenarios, but we are getting near to the stage of asking consultants to take work forward.
It will also be important to consider the sources of the generated electricity, for example by asking whether a renewable and clean source is okay as opposed to a source that requires the burning of fossil fuels, which will increase carbon emissions. There is a balance to be struck.
For all the good work that you and others might be doing to reduce energy consumption and achieve better energy efficiency, the nature of the modern world—with more high-tech equipment, evolving computers, increasing standards of living, increasing population, and so on—means that it will be difficult to balance efficiencies against demand, which is likely to increase. It would therefore be unrealistic to plan for a reduction in the use of electricity and other types of energy in the medium or long term.
I do not want to say whether it would be realistic or unrealistic. As Trudy Nicolson says, there are two things to consider—factors that could increase demand, and energy efficiency measures and the use of cleaner resources.
In evidence sessions such as this one, people want to consider broader issues, to put matters in context. We therefore ask the minister either to come to the committee for a short evidence session or to respond in writing to the points that the officials feel they cannot or should not answer.
Without knowing why the agency is taking a minimalist approach, that is difficult to answer. There has been consultation and responses are being analysed. If people have expressed the view that you say they have, and if there is firm evidence behind it, it will be taken into account. However, I am not entirely sure what is meant by the general statement that you related.
The directive gets quite technical, but our understanding is that the Scottish Building Standards Agency is currently complying with articles 3, 4, 5 and 6. We also understand that it has just consulted on articles 7, 8 and 9.
Will you look at the evidence that has been given and take on board what has been said?
Yes.
I appreciate that much of this area is reserved. The committee is interested in finding out what works and the Executive's view on the practical things that can be done. Earlier, Phil Gallie talked about Scotland being colder, wetter and windier than the rest of the United Kingdom, which is true. What practical things can we do to begin to make a difference both to fuel poverty and to the environment? Last week, we heard about a scheme in England that gives council tax rebates to individuals who have energy efficient homes. I understand that there is a problem with the legislation in Scotland. Does the Executive propose to examine the issue, as that is a practical step that we could take? If so, how might you go about changing the legislation—by statutory instrument, for example—to accelerate the introduction of such a scheme? That may not be in the Executive's bag and it may not want to do it, but I would like to find out whether it does.
I understand that a review of local government finance more generally is under way. We would like to see the review's broad conclusions before making specific changes. The issue you raise is on a list of measures for consideration, but only after there has been more progress with the review of local government finance.
Unfortunately, we will have to wait a while. The answer is that you are awaiting the review's conclusions. We may not like that idea, and it is possible to accelerate some measures while reviews are on-going, but I understand the position.
The main point on procurement is made in the minister's written evidence. Procurement guidelines emphasise whole-life costs and quality. The term "energy efficiency" is not used up front, but it is implied in everything that is said. Agencies should examine not just the cost when they are signing the contract for the product that they are purchasing but the whole-life costs, including any indirect costs that may be incurred by a particular purchase. They should consider much wider issues of sustainable development. The emphasis on whole-life costs and quality already requires people to consider sustainable development issues.
I saw the line in the evidence to which you refer, which is a nice, wholesome thing to say. However, it does not give the committee an example of what the Executive has done by way of procurement, nor does it indicate the expected outcomes of such measures and the differences that they will make. It would be good if you could provide the committee with specific practical examples of measures that the Executive has taken or has encouraged others to take, so that they can be shared with everyone—not just with the committee, but with others who read our report in the future. I am not sure whether other members agree, but I would find it useful if you could provide us with practical examples of things that have already been done and changes that may be made in the future.
We could certainly do that. I cannot remember whether there are examples in the green jobs strategy, but we will look for some. I know that we have examples.
I am sure that you have, otherwise the words in the evidence would be meaningless.
We take on board the value of case studies more generally as a means of encouraging behavioural change.
I have one final question on the progress we in Scotland are making compared with other European regions or states of a similar size. Have you any statistics to show what the rest are doing and from which we could learn?
Are you talking in terms of energy efficiency?
Yes.
I suppose we looked at the UK figures for energy efficiency.
That is not necessarily the best example.
I am not aware of any specific statistics that compare us. We can find out if there are any.
It is difficult when considering the amount saved, because we start from a different baseline with different climatic conditions, as your colleague mentioned. We compare the means of assistance and advice with other areas, and although we are not in any sense complacent, we are in a reasonably advantageous position compared with England in terms of the advice that is offered to business, for example.
Yes, but the colder, wetter, windier places do not tend to be south of us; they tend to be north of us or across the North sea. It might be good to get examples from there.
Last week, we took evidence from a representative of the Scottish energy officers network—I cannot remember the chap's name—and he said that sustainable procurement measures in local authorities are very much voluntary rather than mandatory, which he felt meant that not enough action was being taken. What are the Executive's views on that?
As I understand it, local authorities are not bound by the guidance that is given to the Executive and its agencies. In a sense, local authorities themselves are responsible for ensuring best value, which I assume encompasses this whole area. That applies to other procurement considerations, not just to energy efficiency. We might want to discuss that further with colleagues who are responsible for local government. I do not think that I can give a specific answer on that, other than to say that it reflects the general relationship with local government.
The central energy efficiency fund was set up to encourage energy efficiency within local authorities. It was a bit slow to start, but it is in its second year now. We try to provide the funding, advice and information to help local authorities make a change, but there is no mandatory requirement at the moment.
Does the fund give any incentives as well as advice?
It is a revolving loan fund, which local authorities administer themselves. The money goes into the pot and local authorities invest it in energy efficiency measures. If they make any financial savings, they can reinvest them in front-line services or whatever they wish.
We took evidence on that; it sounds familiar. Perhaps you could give us a note of how many local authorities have taken advantage of that fund.
All 32 of them received an allocation.
How many have used it?
They are all using it. They are at different stages—some are more advanced than others—but all the local authorities are using the money. Most of them have committed it; a few are perhaps halfway through their allocation.
Would members like a background paper on that from the Executive?
That would be useful.
Written evidence has indicated that an evaluation is being conducted at the moment and that it is due to report in November 2006. Is that right?
Yes.
Is there a suggestion that that might be extended to higher education institutions?
We want to reconsider whether the central energy efficiency fund was set up in the best way possible; for example, we are concerned that some local authorities have had difficulty spending the money. We are now comparing the fund with other funds, such as the Salix fund, which is connected to the Carbon Trust. That is a local authority fund that operates in England. Salix is currently running a pilot that it has opened out to higher education institutions in Scotland, five or six of which have expressed an interest in joining. We will wait for the evaluation of our fund and the results of the Salix pilot before we move forward. There are differences between the Salix fund and our fund, such as the levels of funding and so on.
I might be missing something. Who or what is Salix?
In effect, the Salix fund is the Carbon Trust's version of Scotland's central energy efficiency fund.
You will be aware that, during the summer, there was a VAT determination that the Energy Saving Trust has found was not to its advantage. I appreciate that you have no brief for the Treasury, so I am not going to ask about that. However, I am aware that, following that, representations were made to the Scottish Executive on whether there was any chance of making good any of the shortfall in income. Have you been able to evaluate any consequences or impact on the work of the Energy Saving Trust as a result of the VAT ruling, and has it been possible to identify any additional support for the Energy Saving Trust?
The Energy Saving Trust is a United Kingdom-wide organisation. It gets most of its funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, some of which is for UK-wide programmes. In accordance with decisions that were made with DEFRA, spending on UK programmes such as the innovation programme, and on UK-wide marketing, had to be cut.
The Scottish Executive supports the work that is done in Scotland by the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust. Is that support given directly to those organisations' Scottish operations or do you send money to London that is thereafter remitted to Scotland?
The finance departments of those organisations are in London.
So the Scottish Executive sends money to London and that money comes back up. Is that right?
The budgets are held in London. The Scottish staff have a ring-fenced budget, but the finance people are in London.
Have you taken steps to ensure that the people of Scotland get full value for the contribution that the Scottish Executive makes and that there is not a proportion of that money being creamed off for administrative purposes? It seems to me that there is an element not of double accounting but of double dealing.
Oh!
I meant that in the literal sense, not in any other: there are two transactions instead of one. Perhaps "double handling" is the best phrase.
We fund the activity and the associated overheads of that activity in Scotland. Some of the evidence from the Carbon Trust shows that we benefit a bit more than we should from UK-wide and English funding and activity. Scotland gets better value than it should for the money that it puts in.
We are better off in the union.
Absolutely.
We are not going there.
You are there.
Let us move on. Some of the evidence that we have received suggests that there is a distinction between energy efficiency and energy conservation. I understand the distinction, but it is not one that I have ever made and I do not think that the minister makes it, either. In paragraph 7 of his written submission, he talks about
I do not know—it is not yet a distinction with which I am familiar, but I do not think that we are planning to use it in the energy efficiency strategy.
I think that it is about being more efficient and about reducing energy use.
The distinction just seems to have emerged and I wondered whether it was one with which you are familiar.
No.
You just get on with the job.
The question that is being asked is whether 10 per cent of the energy that is used in new developments should come from renewable sources.
Is the Scottish planning policy, like the warm deal and the central heating scheme, the responsibility of the Minister for Communities? You are from the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department, and I have heard the Minister for Environment and Rural Development discuss energy efficiency strategies. Can you clarify for us the procedures for co-ordination between the different departments?
Trudy Nicolson may want to elaborate on this. The procedures are largely the same as the procedures in other areas. We have lead responsibility for the subject overall, but to achieve energy efficiency requires collaboration with colleagues who are responsible for planning, building regulations and—as has been said—procurement. There are many exchanges between officials in the departments, and ministerial discussion involves several ministers. We also have a steering group for the strategy.
Yes. There are several internal working groups. There is an energy efficiency strategy steering group, which is made up of senior officials from the various relevant departments, and there is a group that considers sustainable development in the built environment. For various bits and pieces of work—reviews and consultations that we carry out—we have ad hoc groups that get together to discuss the policy implications for each of our areas. We do talk to one another. We also have a lot of interaction with the climate change team and the sustainable development team.
I am interested in how we are examining building standards from the point of view of improving energy conservation, energy efficiency and safety in the home, which is another matter. Building management systems have a great deal of potential in that area. Does the Executive have a view on, for example, smart metering as a more dynamic building management tool? If so, do you foresee any barriers to the rolling out of smart metering in the private and public sectors?
Several pieces of work are going on around metering. If smart metering were to become mandatory rather than voluntary, the matter would rest with the UK Government. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets recently produced a report on smart metering, and the DTI is considering a pilot scheme involving different types of smart metering. There are lots of different types of meters and the DTI needs to know which meters would be most appropriate. It is considering different types of technology. The DTI is also about to launch a consultation on smart metering and billing.
The case is arguable either way. You could take the view that metering is ultimately about regulation and is therefore a UK reserved matter, but you could also say that we are talking about our devolved responsibilities for energy conservation and energy efficiency, so metering could be seen as a tool for assisting with those devolved objectives.
As Trudy Nicolson said, if smart metering was a requirement, it would be understood as being regulation. There are obviously areas in which one can promote the use of smart metering, but if it was a universal requirement, or a requirement in certain sectors, it would be a reserved matter. Even if there are other arguments for doing it, that would still be the case; it depends on whether it is required or voluntary.
We are interested in the results of the various pilots, which could provide evidence that smart metering is better than existing forms of metering. I know that South Lanarkshire Council is carrying out a smart-metering pilot at the moment. The results of that project will show us whether it would be a worthwhile investment.
So there are pilots north of the border?
Yes—individual local authorities have been able to do that if they wanted to.
Charlie Gordon has raised a reasonable point. The Executive is responsible for renewable energy and for the promotion of such energy in Scotland, so it tries to promote the development of wind farms, which link into the wires. The wires might be at a different stage, but smart metering is a process that, if used properly, can be quite effective in helping to reduce energy use and to develop the use of renewable energy sources in homes. I cannot see why, in those circumstances, smart metering has necessarily to be a reserved issue, because it can help with the promotion of renewable energy.
Smart metering would be reserved only if we required people to do it. If we were asking people to do that, the question would come down to who would pay for it. Because there is not yet proof of which technological route is the best one to go down, we are not sure at the moment about the value-for-money aspect of such an exercise.
So, if it is about promotion and encouragement, there is no problem, but if smart metering were statutory, and were therefore regulation, it would be reserved. I understand.
There are many areas where we have used the promotional tool.
Although we have concentrated on energy efficiency today, the fact is that the European paper is looking at secure energy policies—John Home Robertson referred to that. I would like assurance from the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department that it is looking far wider than this committee is. The main principle behind the European Commission green paper is to ensure sustainable supplies of energy to Scotland into the future. Are you confident that what the Scottish Executive is doing now will effectively guard Scotland's corner in ensuring that we will not run out of gas or oil in the future?
You do not need to answer that.
I seek that assurance from the minister, if nothing else. I am conscious that it has been unfair on you two ladies today that you have had to field our questions. There are many other questions that I would have liked to ask the minister, but he is not here. I look to the minister to respond.
Can I say something? First, the question is probably an unfair one to put to officials. It is also unfair on the committee that the minister did not come before us. I suggest that we end the evidence-taking session and hold a short discussion on where we go from here.
Can I make one point?
Yes. If you want to commit yourself on the record, Jane, please carry on.
I will not answer the question directly, but it is important that the committee understand that, for the team that deals with energy in the Executive, a number of strands are involved. Obviously, energy efficiency is involved, as is the need to deal with consents for renewable energy. The promotion of renewable energy for energy reasons and for potential economic development is also involved. We also input to UK discussions on energy policy, energy supply and security of supply. Considerable activity takes place on inputting to those wider discussions.
Thank you very much.
I thank Trudy Nicolson and Jane Morgan for coming before the committee today.
Thank you.
We need to address two things. First, we must have our report on evidence on the energy efficiency aspects of the green paper by 26 September. I ask committee members to give the clerks some guidance, because that will help them to formulate the report.
Would there be any value in involving another committee, convener? After all, we are the European and External Relations Committee.
The consultation paper is a European document. It is perfectly valid for us to consider it.
I would love to have a go at the minister on this one.
I am not asking members to have a go at the minister, John. I am asking you to agree to invite the minister to come before the committee to inform us.
I would love to have that opportunity.
We invited the minister to come before the committee today. The situation is a little bit frustrating. We agreed to meet two weeks in a row in order that we could complete the inquiry and accommodate all the evidence taking. We went out of our way to timetable an extra meeting at which the Executive would give evidence. I understand that we offered both dates to the Executive, although I ask the clerks to correct me if I am wrong on that. It is regrettable that we are where we are on this—
If I may, I will interrupt you there, Irene. The Executive agreed to send a minister to the meeting today, but changed its mind.
That is not a helpful situation, but we are where we are. We issued an invitation and the minister was unable to attend. I am not sure whether we should issue a second invitation. Perhaps we will simply have to write up our report in the absence of the minister's evidence.
The reality is that, if the minister's evidence is to inform the report, he will have to come before the committee at our meeting next week. The second question is whether we carry on and do the report on the basis of the evidence that we have taken so far, and ask the minister to come before the committee to discuss the wider issues.
One has only to look at the green paper to see why we picked it out. It is a huge consultation paper, with massive implications for Scotland and the UK. In terms of the wider issues, one can also see the implications for Europe in terms of trade and the power industry. In talking about energy efficiency and energy conservation, we have skirted around the edges.
Let us bear in mind that we have to respond to the consultation by 26 September, and that the minister should within a few days respond in writing to all the questions that have been asked today. That should properly inform our response. If we are to respond to the consultation, we must do so on the basis of what we have learned so far and what we will receive from the minister in the next week. The question is this: do we wish the minister to speak to us about the green paper in general?
I hear Phil Gallie's point, to which I am not entirely unsympathetic. However, when we decided to focus on energy efficiency, we were conscious of the temptation to range more widely. Although it would have been fascinating to do so, that was not possible given our timescale, which has become more evident as we have gone along.
I agree with Jim Wallace. It is clear in paragraph 2 of the clerk's paper that our remit is to examine energy efficiency issues. Jim Wallace alluded to the long discussion that we had at the beginning of the inquiry in which we discussed other areas that we could cover. We accepted that we had to focus on energy efficiency or we would not get the job done. I am not sure whether it is the committee's responsibility to undertake a wider job, given the remit that we have set ourselves.
I clarify that we require a draft response to the consultation by 26 September. We can strongly request that the minister respond to questions that were asked today in order to inform that draft response, which will have to be agreed at the meeting on 26 September.
I agree with colleagues that we are where we are whether we like it or not. I want to be clear about whether it was understood that the minister was to come and give us evidence.
Yes. The invitation was accepted; that acceptance was then withdrawn for whatever reason.
The Executive sent an official who has been in post for one week to answer questions. That raises questions and was not fair on the official.
She was a very good official.
I meant no criticism of her, but to send an official under those circumstances to answer questions on a matter of such importance to a committee of Parliament, when the minister could and should have been here—leaving aside the politics—is not clever and it will not do.
I do not know what we are going to report on. I accept that it will be a narrow report, but in the past couple of days we have heard about energy efficiency trading certificates, microgeneration, CO2 savings, planning systems, building regulations, and transport usage, which the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning reflects upon in his submission. We do not have answers on any of those subjects, yet they are central to energy efficiency and conservation. We have clues about them all, but no answers.
When we decided on the remit for the inquiry, we had to tighten it up, so we decided that transport would not be included.
You should write, as the convener of the committee, to express your disquiet.
We will hear from Irene Oldfather and Jim Wallace quickly, but I would like to wrap up the current item because we have a lot to get through.
I do not disagree with anything that you said, convener. We should remind ourselves that we are responding to a European Commission green paper. I take on board some of the points that Phil Gallie made, but the inquiry is an opportunity for us to say, "Look, here are some of the things that we're doing in Scotland." We asked for some examples of best practice and the officials told us that they would try to identify some of the pilot schemes and provide information and statistics on those. We could perhaps use that information.
I have two points. First, I do not want to anticipate the debate and discussion that we will have on the report, but we might want to recommend that the appropriate committee consider energy, probably not in the current session but in the next session.
For the sake of the clerks, I am not sure that they should put a huge effort into the report. It could end up being many pages long. We should try to pick out the highlights and put as light a weight as possible on the report. Like it or lump it, we have not managed to complete the inquiry satisfactorily, so it will not carry much weight. Let us treat it as it should be treated and save the clerks from too much aggravation.
I would not like to think that anything would go out from the committee that did not adequately reflect the evidence that we took. That is what the clerks pick up on and what they use.
I am not saying that they should not adequately reflect the evidence. I was talking about the amount of material that they should include.
I suspect that the report is almost ready to go—the clerks are efficient—and that there is not an awful lot more to be put in, except what we heard today and what will come back from the minister.
I agree with part of what Bruce Crawford says. We should keep the report short, sharp and well focused. Rather than being 25-pages long, it should be a short, sharp submission. I agree with the convener that people have given their time to write to us and to come along and give evidence. It is important that we consider that when we present our views, but we should keep the report short and not burden the clerks with an enormous amount of work during the next week. It would be helpful if committee members could see a draft early on. That way we could submit comments to the clerks in advance of the meeting. If we have to agree the report at the meeting, we must have a clearing system for any major comments ahead of time.
Bearing in mind that the timetable is tight, the clerks will find the best way—as they always do—to communicate with committee members. Can we finish the discussion at this point and move on? I hesitate to ask whether everyone is content because I can see a lot of grumpy faces—apart from mine, of course.