Equal Opportunities Committee, 21 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Official Report 330KB pdf

---

Age

Good morning. In opening the sixth meeting of the Equal Opportunities Committee in 2006, I remind all those present that mobile phones should be turned off completely because they interfere with our sound system. I have received apologies from Frances Curran and Elaine Smith. Jamie McGrigor will be late.

Agenda item 1 is on the Scottish Executive's consultation document "Age and Experience: Consultation on the Strategy for a Scotland with an Ageing Population". I am pleased to welcome the Minister for Communities, Malcolm Chisholm, and Scottish Executive officials Fiona Hird and Jess Barrow. I invite the minister to make an opening statement.

Last week, I was pleased to launch "Age and Experience: Consultation on the Strategy for a Scotland with an Ageing Population". Before I talk briefly about the consultation process, let me provide some context for the issue.

The Scottish Parliament has achieved quite a lot for older people, but there is more to do. We are trying to build on what has been achieved to face the future challenges of Scotland's aging population as the percentage of the population aged over 65 increases from its present level of about 15 per cent to more than 25 per cent in 25 years' time. That change is sometimes described as a problem or even—shockingly, in my opinion—a burden for society to bear. In a way, the heart of the strategy is to challenge stereotypes so that we see older people as a resource and as great contributors to Scottish society. We are trying to break down the stereotypes by saying that the increased number of older people in society is a great opportunity for Scotland. That is the foundation for the strategy.

However, the strategy does not forget what one might call the traditional service areas. We are looking to provide older people with the services that they need, when they need them. In our consideration of new models of service delivery, the idea of integration is very much to the fore. That is an outline of the proposed strategy, but I look forward to answering more questions about the details.

I know that the consultation process is of particular interest to the committee. The consultation document is being sent to a range of people and organisations from across Scotland. We are consulting older people's interest groups, community councils, housing organisations, rural organisations and many others. We also want to hear from professionals and service providers from the business and voluntary sectors. We worked from a wide variety of Scottish Executive distribution lists to send out a first tranche of 5,000 copies of the consultation document and more copies are being requested and sent out each day. We are also working with various organisations to tap into their networks of contacts.

We are encouraging as many people as possible to contribute to the consultation. Our website—www.infoscotland.com/experience—is a resource that gives people the opportunity to complete the consultation questionnaire online and to find out more about the development of the strategy. The website also features a range of opinionated models.

We know that a lot of information about the aging population is available, including a lot of work by respected academics and researchers. To ensure that our strategy draws on that expertise, we are commissioning a series of policy briefing papers that will provide an analysis of existing research and strengthen the final strategy. We are also commissioning a series of focus groups to explore the perspectives of different age cohorts, rural and urban perspectives and different equality perspectives, such as the views of people from minority ethnic communities and people with disabilities.

We are working with a wide variety of organisations to organise seminars on specific topics for which people with a special interest in a subject will be brought in. We are in discussion with organisations ranging from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to the National Union of Journalists, Age Concern Scotland and Help the Aged. We are involving the older people's consultative forum, which is a quarterly forum that I chair for leading Scottish voluntary organisations for older people. We are also working hard internally to ensure that ministers, Executive departments and officials are aware of, and contribute to, the strategy.

The consultation will last until 5 June. After that, we will gather together all the evidence and, making use of the responses, develop the strategy and launch it by the end of the year. All that work is being overseen by an advisory group of individuals from a wide range of interests covering employment, health, social care, housing, older people's interests, equalities, new technology and volunteering.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to introduce the consultation. I am encouraged to hear about the committee's useful stock-taking exercise on age issues, the timing of which is helpful for our plans. I look forward to answering members' questions and hearing their views.

We have lots of questions for you. The "Setting the Scene" paper that accompanies the consultation mentions several initiatives that are in place, such as joint future and "Building a Health Service Fit for the Future". What will the added value of the strategy for an aging population be?

We are building on existing initiatives and policy developments. The two initiatives that you mentioned are good examples that, in their own time, have driven forward the agenda for older people's services. The joint future agenda is still developing; it concerns integrated services, which are central to the strategy. The developments in the health service following the David Kerr report are crucial to the way in which care is delivered to older people, with an emphasis on integrated care and keeping people at home as far as possible.

We are building on those initiatives; we are not trying to reinvent those policies. We hope to develop the idea of integrated services, which is fundamental to those policies and others. The new dimension challenges the stereotypes of aging and emphasises the great contribution that older people make to Scottish society and will make if some of the barriers to that contribution are removed. The strategy builds on our good foundation of policies and initiatives but broadens it and looks to the future. The intention is for the nation to address the challenges that we face because of Scotland's changing demography.

"Setting the Scene" defines older people as people who are over 50, which I find worrying. How was that age decided on?

That question is interesting. The document says:

"a flexible view needs to be taken of what ‘older' means".

There is no answer to the question of when someone is "older", but if we are breaking down stereotypes, what age do we want to pick? The traditional age might be 65, but it might be said that that reinforces the stereotype. We are saying that people can do many things after 65.

The definition of older people has become international. To challenge and break down stereotypes, choosing the age of 50 might have some sense, because people might begin to experience age discrimination—in employment, for example—when they are over 50. We hear of many people who find it particularly difficult to get a job when they are in their 50s. Because of society's attitudes, there may be something to be said for making 50 the start of the definition of older people. That is not right in health terms, but I do not know the right answer in health terms, because people are having more years of healthy life, so the health definition will change over time. The process of aging may be gradual. There is no answer to the question, but I point you to the phrase about having a flexible definition.

How does the development of the strategy link with the legislation on age discrimination that will come into force later this year?

That legislation is timely for the strategy and is necessary. People will have questions about those matters that are Westminster's responsibility rather than ours. One of my answers is that at least some of what is happening at Westminster is entirely helpful and consistent with our approach and the age discrimination legislation is a good example of that. It will probably develop over time—for example, people do not have an absolute right to work when they are over 65, but some committee members and others probably think that they should have such a right. The age discrimination legislation at Westminster is a big step forward and I hope that we can build on it.

The commission for equality and human rights will begin its work next year. How does the Executive intend the strategy to link with the commission's remit?

It helps that age discrimination will be part of that organisation's remit and that the commission will have a role in relation to the age discrimination legislation. It is good that older people are firmly aligned with the other equality interests. It is hard to make comparisons but, arguably—well, I will not say what I was going to say. Age discrimination is a massive issue that affects many people, but it cannot be weighed against other forms of discrimination. Given our emphasis on breaking down stereotypes and challenging discrimination, it is helpful that dealing with ageism will be part of the commission's remit.

We certainly welcome that. As you know, the committee has a reporter on age. We feel that age discrimination needs to be addressed.

I congratulate the minister on the excellence of his document. It is good that the Parliament is putting its shoulder behind the efforts to eliminate many of the ageism problems and other discrimination problems that affect older people. The minister is to be congratulated and we will give him any help that we can.

The strategy has four clear aims. What further information can you provide about them?

To an extent, the aims are open ended. The aim on access to opportunities to make a contribution is about recognising, acknowledging and valuing the contribution that older people make in diverse ways. I will speak tonight at the launch of the strategy on older people's volunteering, which I expect some committee members will attend. We know that older people make a massive contribution to volunteering.

Older people also contribute at work. I am mindful of what I say about that, because I have no wish for older people to be forced to work, but if they want to work, they should have opportunities to do so and the barriers to that should be removed.

Beyond work and volunteering, older people contribute to society in many ways, such as through intergenerational work, which has been flagged up. It is simple to see the economic contribution of older people, which is part of their role in the economy, although older people's spending power varies. The general contribution that older people make to their communities is significant.

We want to listen to people. We are saying that we recognise the contribution and asking what the barriers are to older people making a contribution. How can we support older people to make the contribution that they want to make to society? The strategy has nothing to do with compulsion; it recognises the contribution that older people can and will make and it will ensure that they have all the opportunities that we can provide them with.

The strategy's objectives are wide ranging. To what extent are they achievable?

We certainly have ambitions to realise the objectives and I see no reason why we should not be able to do that. I am now looking at the five objectives in the document. I have described some of them already, so in answering I will repeat myself to an extent. Opportunities are part of the language of the objectives, which also refer to the involvement of older people and maximising older people's contribution in ways that include

"promoting active and healthy ageing".

The fourth objective involves setting a direction of travel, identifying gaps and ensuring that priorities are right. The objectives are described in a way that can be realised.

We are determined to shift the debate. It depresses me—and, I am sure, the committee—when people have a negative view of an increasing population of older people. I genuinely see the strategy as a great opportunity for Scotland. We have a great opportunity to describe how that vision can be realised in practical ways and how we can turn the debate round to the advantage not only of older people but of Scotland as a whole.

Do you agree with the projection that a child born today will live until 97 if she is female, and 93 if he is male? The retirement age of 65 was set pre-war and we need to look at it again. If people want to retire at 65, that is good, but if they want to continue working, we should put no obstacles in their way.

That is certainly how I would like things to develop. Obviously, issues such as the retirement age are the responsibility of the Westminster Government, but even there we are seeing some helpful changes. For example, last April, there were changes that allowed people to defer or draw their pension while continuing to work. There will be a change to occupational pensions this April that will allow people to draw their occupational pensions and continue working for their employer. Some of the changes over which we do not have control are beginning to change the rigid view of the retirement age. It is a big area for the strategy. As I said before—I cannot say it often enough—the strategy is not to do with compulsion.

However, it is important to consider whether people want to go on working or whether they want to work in a different way and have more flexible models of working, for example shorter working hours. Although that is important for people over 65, it could be equally as important for those under the current retirement age. One way to retain workers in the health service and elsewhere is to offer different models of working patterns. That has been discussed by the advisory group and we want to look at it further. In that way, we hope to make retirement more of a process than an event.

Good morning. The consultation document refers to five areas on which views are sought from respondents. You mentioned two of them: contribution and opportunity, and work. The others are services, health and housing, and transport and surroundings. Why were those areas selected as the priorities for the strategy?

To a large extent, I have covered the areas of contribution and opportunity, and work. One could say that those areas are the new frontier. The consequence of turning round and challenging stereotypes about aging is that we will look positively at older people and the contribution that they can make. We have to open up that territory and ask how we can break down the barriers, in what way older people can contribute and what the obstacles are to older people making a contribution in the way that they want.

Those first two areas followed from our fundamental starting point that older people should be free to contribute in the way that they want for as long as they want. We recognise that work is part of that. It is a difficult area because once people start talking about compulsion, the debate changes completely. However, we are not talking about compulsion. We all feel that if people want to go on working, they should have that opportunity. We know that ageism in the workplace is a big issue. We decided that work needed to be addressed head on in the strategy, notwithstanding the dangers that the subject could be misinterpreted.

We are not forgetting what people might describe as the traditional service areas, which is why there is a section in the strategy on services for older people. There has been some progress, but we want to build on it to provide better services for older people. Integration is a key idea. We need to join up services better for older people, but there is a lot more to do under that heading to deliver more effective services.

We looked at health and well-being, but we are not trying to redo all the work that has been done by the David Kerr group. There is no big new focus on the health service, because the Kerr report carried the debate forward significantly on how health services should be delivered in a different way for older people in Scotland in the future. That follows from our view that older people can go on contributing much to society. We want to support people to have more years of healthy life, so the strategy focuses on how we can promote and improve people's health for as long as possible. That builds on the important work that is being done on health improvement throughout the Executive. However, we felt that it was important to open that debate out in this strategy. Of course, well-being implies a broad definition of health.

The final areas are housing, and transport and surroundings. We felt that it was important to ask how, if we want people to be able to live at home for as long they can and want to, we can create environments that enable older people to live in the community in a satisfactory way for as long as possible. That builds on the thrust of current policy about caring for people in their homes, but we felt that it was important to look at that area because a lot of work remains to be done on housing, for example. The results of the survey that we carried out the week before the strategy was launched were interesting. When we asked people throughout Scotland about factors influenced by the Scottish Executive that make for a happy old age, affordable accessible housing came out as the number 1 issue, marginally ahead of decent health and community care services. People are therefore saying that we are right to focus on such issues.

Good morning. I am pleased that the Scottish strategy is being launched, as I know that the Welsh strategy has been successful.

I want to ask you about pensions, a subject that has just taken up perhaps a quarter of today's meeting but which is not focused on much in the consultation document. You mentioned three or four times that retirement is a big area in the strategy. You also mentioned employment discrimination against people who are over 50. However, the consultation states:

"Some issues like pensions and benefits are the responsibility of the UK Government. The Scottish Executive works closely with the UK Government on these reserved matters, for example to promote better take-up of benefits."

The committee is concerned that nothing more about that is mentioned in the consultation document. Given what is happening on pensions at Westminster, if respondents are not told that pensions are a reserved matter, they might respond on that subject as well. What are your thoughts about that?

Some of the questions in the consultation are open ended. If people want to respond on reserved matters, they are entirely free to do so and we will feed their views to the Westminster Government. However, as regards developing our strategy, we are doing what we do in all policy areas and are concentrating on the areas for which we have responsibility. We do not want to say that people will not or cannot express views on reserved matters, but it is not the Scottish Executive's role to have pension policies and there would not be much point in having them because they would not change anything.

I understand that we must look at the matter in the round. As I have said this morning, I do not see the developments at the Westminster Parliament as contrary to what we are trying to do on age discrimination and changing arrangements to make retirement more flexible. I fully acknowledge the contentious debate about the state pension, but people recognise that that is not within our sphere of responsibility.

Thank you for that answer. Obviously, other members and I will have views on the reserved issues. It is your view that the strategy is not hampered by not specifically stating that the Scottish Parliament has no responsibility for pensions and benefits. You are quite happy to receive answers regarding pensions and benefits, as I think you probably will. You said that you will collate that information and pass it on to Westminster. How will you do that? What is the mechanism for that?

We will report on the consultation and, if reserved areas are covered, that will be part of the report. The report will be given to the Westminster Government.

In your opening remarks, you said that integration is very much to the fore. We would all fall in behind that. The "Setting the Scene" document notes that responsibility for responding to an aging population does not lie just with the Scottish Executive. What input will other partners such as local authorities, health boards and the voluntary sector have in the development of the strategy?

We aim to work in partnership with those and other bodies. That is reflected in the fact that the advisory group includes people from health and many other agencies. There will be a series of seminars, some of which will be arranged by specific partners such as COSLA and NHS Health Scotland, so there will be input in that way. There will also be specialist briefing papers, and partner organisations will encourage their own networks to respond to the consultation process. I know, for example, that the COSLA network of local authority older people's champions is going to tap into its local networks to feed into the consultation. We have a series of initiatives that will enable the various partner organisations to contribute fully to the strategy.

I am pleased to hear you emphasising that the consultation exercise should take on board the views of as many people as possible. Can you expand on that? As well as the written consultation, you have chosen various other consultation methods—focus groups, seminars and so on. What mechanisms were used to identify the wide range of initiatives that you have chosen?

The officials did a lot of work on that, so they may want to answer. We tried not to rely on just one method of reaching people. The core document is a written consultation; that is the traditional, normal way in which we try to get responses. We wanted to use that as a starting point, but also to use as many other different ways as we could think of. I am not sure whether we selected from a broader range or whether we decided to use every different method that we could think of—a website, focus groups, and so on. Fiona Hird or Jess Barrow may want to comment on the thinking behind that.

We considered a range of different ways of getting the consultation out. The intention has always been to have a wide consultation. There is a limited time in which to do that, and there are limited resources. Within that, we have chosen a spectrum of methods that will reach out to a wide range of audiences and individuals. We took advice from colleagues in the Executive's civic participation team and looked carefully at the different methods of consultation that were available. We chose these methods as the best to meet our aims.

The committee is aware that there are many groups that represent the interests of older people. We are looking for an assurance that the consultation will get to individuals who wish to participate as well as to the interest groups. Are you confident that the methods that have been chosen will allow that to happen?

We certainly hope so. As I mentioned, COSLA's network of local authority older people's champions will get its local networks to feed into the consultation. We are already getting quite a lot of demand for the consultation document, but I understand the concern that you raise: how do we ensure that every older person in Scotland has an opportunity to feed in if they want to do that? Are you confident that they will be able to do that, Jess?

It is always difficult to reach hard-to-reach groups—they are called hard-to-reach groups for good reason. It is difficult to reach out to a broad cross-section of people who are not necessarily involved in interest groups, but we are aiming to do that by various means. We are using the interest groups because, often, their network extends beyond their immediate frame of reference. We are using a consultation that is accessible and easy to use, and which will have greater reach. We held a media launch last week to get it publicised as much as possible. We will use methods to make the general public aware that the consultation paper is out there.

The consultation has also gone out to community councils, who have been the key people who have asked for extra copies over the past week. They are keen to see it and to use it to reach people who are not necessarily involved in other ways. We are doing our best to reach out as widely as we can.

We have often heard criticism of consultations by the Executive and others from organisations that feel that because the gatekeepers get the consultations, it is difficult to get wider participation and wider views. Even sending the consultation to community councils—although it is good to do that—might not be the best way to get a wider consultation. We are interested in how you get past the gatekeepers.

We are doing our best to do that. One of the key things is the design of the consultation paper; it is easy to copy if people want to copy it. It is easy to download from the internet, and people can complete their response online. We are encouraging consultees to send it out as widely as possible to their networks. It is difficult to make a consultation as wide we would like it to be—the main way in which we will try to do that will be through the media.

Do you agree that disability transcends normal politics and that the consultation should be done consensually? If that is the case, have other political parties been invited to send representatives along to your forum? If not, why not?

There will always be controversy about who is on advisory groups. I understand the point, but I suspect that what John Swinburne suggests would make the forum more party political rather than less party political. I do not know. I do not regard the forum, which I chair, as being in any way party political. I do not ask for the political views of the people who come along because those views are totally irrelevant to their being on the group.

This is not a question so much as a comment. It is good that you are encouraging people to use the document as a foundation for discussion groups. Has it gone to wardens of sheltered housing complexes and to church groups? If it goes to local authorities, will it trickle down to that sort of distribution?

That is a good suggestion. I do not know whether that is happening.

The consultation document has gone to all the housing associations, and we would encourage people to use it in that way. It will depend on the resources of individual organisations whether they take it forward. We have had a request for Gaelic copies of the consultation so that it can be taken to a lunch club in Lewis.

So your strategy is working.

The consultation should involve as many people as possible. Could you do an advertising campaign? Are there posters available that could be put up in community halls and that type of thing, rather than just the document going out? We all go around lots of elderly groups, and I would be more than happy to take a poster out to wherever I go. I am sure that other MSPs would be happy to do that as well. Will there be an advertising campaign through which people can pick it up, rather than just a launch?

We are not using that method, but we will reflect on the suggestion.

It is interesting to see that our questions are now homing in on the consultation process. Although the Scottish Executive has a good reputation for consulting as widely as possible, questions are being asked about the mechanisms that it uses and the basis for its choices. For example, is there a social-scientific basis to the consultation that allows you to say that your consultation methodology is good?

You mentioned academics and researchers. I am interested in how you will weigh the consultation responses. I assume that the researchers will talk to hundreds of people and, clearly, some responses will represent the views of many people whereas others will represent only one individual, whose views are not necessarily wrong. Real difficulty is involved in weighting consultation responses because findings can be skewed by poor weighting methodologies. The issue is one that all the committees need to consider. I do not expect a reasoned answer today, although if you have one, I would be happy to hear it.

I do not have an answer today, but that is the kind of thinking that we may have to do seven years down the line. We have made great advances in our consultation mechanisms—certainly, in our formal consultations. Consultation is implicit in the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament, so we need to reflect on how we can get better at it. Obviously, it is important that we get it right. Although Marlyn Glen's intention in asking the question was not to discount consultation, other people tend to question the representativeness of consultations in order to do so. It is important that we get our consultations as right as possible; consultation should be seen as a positive thing.

On this occasion, we do not claim to have got everything right; we are not saying that this consultation is a whole lot better than others that we have done. There is no doubt that the consultation document comes within the general tradition of Executive consultation documents. That said, I hope that we have used a broader range of consultation methods. I am sure that the issue that Marlyn Glen raises could form the subject of an inquiry at some point. I am not sure which committee would have the responsibility for that, though.

The point is important. The committee is keen to ensure that the widest possible range of people is consulted. It looks as if the Executive is doing that on this occasion. Whenever I see that women have not been targeted in a consultation, I am always concerned; more older people are women, but few of the groups that are to be consulted target women.

How will the Executive target for consultation disabled people, people from minority ethnic communities and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to ensure that their needs are met by the strategy?

We aim to commission a series of focus groups that will look at the issues from the various equality perspectives. Jess Barrow wants to respond to a point that Marlyn Glen made previously. Jess may also want to comment on the point that Marlyn has just made.

The exercise is a consultation and not a research exercise, so it will not have the validity that proper social-scientific research would have. However, the commissioning of the policy briefing papers will draw on existing research to ensure that that is also included.

The consultation paper asks specific questions about the consultee—it asks whether they are making the response as an individual, or on behalf of an organisation or group, following a group discussion. It also includes questions that will allow us to analyse on an equality basis. The paper is constructed in such a way that we can analyse where views are coming from. When we have the information, we can begin to make a judgment on the representativeness of the responses.

I am concerned that you may be planning to have only one focus group on equalities.

I think that a series of groups is planned.

Yes—a series of focus groups will look at different equality issues. We will discuss with the contractors the precise details of how we will do that. There will not be one catch-all equalities focus group.

How is the Scottish Executive actively promoting the availability of the consultation document in alternative formats? On the last page of the paper it says:

"This paper is available on request in alternative formats and languages."

Such formats are available on request. Jess Barton gave the example of a request for the paper to be available in Gaelic.

Yes, but you are not being proactive in pushing out those alternative formats, which the committee is always asking for. Instead of people having to hear from someone else that alternative formats are available, we would prefer the Executive to be proactive in making available alternative formats.

This afternoon, I am meeting Rohini Sharma, who is a member of the advisory group and represents housing associations. We will discuss how the consultation paper could go out more widely to ethnic minority groups. We will look again at the issue. At the moment, alternative formats are being made available on request.

The committee feels strongly that it is important that material be made available in alternative formats as part of consultation exercises. If people do not know that a consultation paper is available in alternative formats, they will not request it.

As you mentioned, minister, the committee is engaged in a taking stock exercise on age issues. We hope to conclude that work in June. How do you see the two exercises working together?

I suppose that it is a coincidence—albeit a happy one—that both the Executive and the committee are involved in this work. Obviously, the committee's findings will be very useful to us; your report will inform the development of our strategy. As it happens, the committee's work is perfectly timed.

That concludes our formal questioning, minister. In the few minutes that remain, does any member have a question?

The consultation period is about 12 weeks. Is that long enough? The findings will be drafted between June and August. Obviously, Parliament is in recess during that time, although I am sure that Jess Barrow will be working throughout those three months. Is three months sufficient to draft a report on the findings? You said that you will hold seminars. Will you go out to people and groups or will people have to come to Edinburgh for them?

Two points arise. In answer to the first question, three months is normal for such consultations. I know that that is not an answer, but that is my view. Obviously, we want to try to complete the work this year, so we want to conclude the consultation in June.

I have a list of the seminars, but I cannot find it at the moment. Not all the seminars will be held in Edinburgh; they will be held in various places around the country. Perhaps Jess Barrow can say a little more on the seminars.

The location of the seminars will depend very much on the partner organisations that we are asking to organise them. We are reliant on our partners because they have expertise in their specialist areas and they have the networks of contacts to draw in the specialists. For example, we are talking to Architecture and Design Scotland about a seminar on the built environment. Given that ADS knows the networks and has the expert contacts, it will decide on the best location and format for the seminar.

Are there any specific rural aspects to the consultation. I am thinking of everything to do with everything.

"Everything to do with everything", minister.

There will be a focus on rural issues in some of the focus groups and the seminars. Have I missed anything?

No. That is absolutely right. The seminars have not yet been confirmed. We are still in discussion with our partners. If we get the appropriate partners, we hope to have two rural seminars; one will consider rural services and the other will consider rural enterprise issues. We are well aware of the fact that demography affects people in rural areas very differently to how it affects people in urban areas.

It is good that that will be covered. Thank you.

I will reiterate a point that I made earlier. You say that the seminars will be conducted by experts, minister, but will you advise the people who run them that they should go out to rural areas? Elderly people, disabled people and others cannot always get to seminars that are held centrally in Edinburgh. It would be good for your partners to hold seminars outwith Edinburgh.

It may have been mentioned earlier, but I hope that we can hand the results of our taking stock exercise to you. Will you feed its results into your work?

Absolutely. We would welcome that.

Thank you. We would welcome an outline of the seminars and any other meetings that are to be held around the country, so perhaps you will send that to us. We look forward to the outcome of the consultation and to working together on the results of our taking stock exercise.

Thank you.

I suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow for the changeover of witnesses.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—