Subordinate Legislation
Town and Country Planning (Electronic Communications) (Scotland) Order 2004 (Draft)
We move to item 2, which is our consideration of the draft Town and Country Planning (Electronic Communications) (Scotland) Order 2004. I welcome Mary Mulligan, the Deputy Minister for Communities, who joins us for this item—why break the habit of a lifetime, Mary?
As members are probably aware, the draft order is an affirmative instrument. Under rule 10.6.2 of the standing orders, the deputy minister is required move a motion that the draft order be approved. Committee members have received a copy of the draft order and the accompanying documentation. I invite the minister to speak briefly to the draft order; I will invite her to move the motion later.
Thank you, convener. The purpose of the draft order is to remove the legal barriers that prevent some aspects of the planning system from being carried out electronically. Before I touch on some of the details of the legislation, it might be helpful for me to outline the background to some of our work.
The Executive has long recognised the opportunities that are presented by new information and communication technology to increase efficiency and promote greater public involvement by making the planning system more open and accessible. The committee will also be aware of the Executive's broader commitment to modernise public services, including the 21st century government target that all public sector services that can feasibly be delivered electronically should be made available in that way by 2005.
The potential benefits from the use of electronic communications in the planning system are considerable. Practical examples might include faster—indeed, almost instantaneous—transmission between parties; reduced costs for postage, packing, photocopying and printing; and reduced storage of papers and files.
As a result, we have been working in partnership with planning authorities to make the most of the opportunities that new technology presents. However, to progress that work, we must first remove legal impediments to enable the use of electronic communications. Section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000, under which this order has been made with the Secretary of State's consent, gives us powers to amend existing legislation to achieve that aim. I understand that this is the first Scottish order to be made under those powers.
I should make it clear that the purpose of the draft order is to make it possible for those who wish to do so to use an electronic, rather than a paper-based, planning system. The existing paper-based system will continue to operate for as long as those who engage in the system wish to use it.
In drafting the order, we have recognised that electronic communications would not be appropriate in a number of areas. For example, they would not be appropriate if criminal sanctions could result from a failure to comply with certain notices, such as those that relate to enforcement, or if an electronic address would not be known. Existing arrangements will continue for such cases.
When we carried out a full consultation exercise on our proposals and on an initial draft order, we received widespread support. The responses that we received inform the final draft order that the committee is considering today.
Finally, members are no doubt aware that we hope to take forward our programme of planning system reform by means of a planning bill that will be introduced later in this parliamentary session. Future primary and secondary legislation will be prepared to ensure that it is compatible with electronic working.
I am happy to take questions before I formally move that the order be agreed.
I want to say at the outset that, despite any comments that I might make, I fully support the policy objective behind the order. I agree with the minister's wish to make it possible for anyone who wants to do so to use such communications over the widest possible range of interactions with all levels of government.
That said, my concerns about the order are quite different from those that were expressed by the Subordinate Legislation Committee and are based on my unfortunate specialist knowledge of electronic communications. I started using electronic mail in 1980, so I have a certain amount of experience with some of the difficulties associated with the subject. I have already given a minister a copy of my notes, and I hope that she will accept that I am not trying to make any political points. As I have said, I support what she is trying to achieve.
Article 7(2) of the draft order, which relates to applications for review of old mineral planning permissions, says:
"Where an electronic communication is used to make an application … under"
various paragraphs in schedule 9 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997,
"the applicant shall be deemed to have agreed"
to use electronic communication. There are similar provisions elsewhere in the draft order, but we need not dwell on them.
That provision raises a very real difficulty, because e-mail technology in no sense guarantees that the sender of an e-mail as it presents to the receiver is the actual sender. I have prepared a wee note for colleagues that I do not wish to read into the Official Report. It describes in three lines how someone can use the software on a standard PC to effect what is called spoofing.
Most of us have received spam e-mails that try to sell us things. Given the way in which e-mail works, there is scope for people to be
"deemed to have agreed … to the use of electronic communication",
despite the fact that they might not know that someone had sent an e-mail in their name, which can be done without the need for access to the person's computer and software, the services that they have contracted or anything over which they have any control. I would be interested to hear the minister's comments on that.
I will list all my concerns. Article 3 would amend the 1997 act to add new paragraph (c) to section 130(2), which would use the phrase
"in the ordinary course of transmission"
to try to determine when it would be reasonable for people to have received an e-mail. The phrase is meaningless, because it has no standard definition in the context of e-mail. The situation for the Post Office is different; there is a definition of first and second-class post. It is important to realise that the sending of e-mails involves all sorts of bits of technology, in relation to which neither party has any contractual relationship that can affect the time that it takes for a piece of electronic mail to be delivered. Delivery can take days in certain circumstances, over which neither sender nor recipient has the slightest control, particularly when one party is unaware of the other party's desire to interact electronically.
Article 4(3) would introduce new subsection (4) in section 271 of the 1997 act, which would require that
"the notice or other document shall be—
(a) capable of being accessed by the person mentioned in that provision;
(b) legible in all material respects; and
(c) in a form sufficiently permanent to be used for subsequent reference".
The meaning of "capable of being accessed" is unclear in the context of electronic communication. Capability of access on the part of the recipient of the message depends on their having physical access to equipment that can receive the e-mail and on their being at the location where the equipment is situated. It is not the same as a piece of mail dropping through the mailbox. Other parties are aware that a letter has been delivered, although they will not be aware of the letter's contents unless it is opened. E-mail does not work in that way. Furthermore, the recipient might be in another country and unless they make arrangements to access e-mail from anywhere—as I do—they might be unable to access their e-mail and unaware that a message has been sent.
The message would have to be
"legible in all material respects",
but not all e-mail systems provide the same capability. The basic requirement for e-mail is to handle text, so the requirement in new section 271(4)(b) of the 1997 act might restrict the ability to send diagrams, which I suspect might often be necessary.
Finally, it is not at all clear what the requirement that the message must be "permanent … for subsequent reference" would mean in the context of e-mail. In the notes that I provided, I suggest that that could be achieved only if the sender maintained a permanent website that could be accessed by the recipient. Of course, the sender could do that.
Article 6 defines when an e-mail is "received", but I do not know what "received" means. It might mean that an e-mail has arrived on the server. For example, members of the Scottish National Party have SNP e-mail accounts and there is an SNP computer somewhere—I do not know where it is—that receives mail that is sent to my address at snp.org. Does that constitute "received" for the purposes of the draft order, or is an e-mail received only when it is transferred to my computer, which happens continuously if there is a broadband connection, whether or not I am present? Is the e-mail received only when I open it and read it? There are all sorts of issues.
Article 6 also refers to the "working day", but it is difficult to establish what that means. The definition of a working day excludes, for example, local holidays—that is the situation in relation to other legislation, so there is nothing exceptional about the provision. However, e-mail can be received at any physical location, so the operation of local holidays in relation to the definition of when e-mail is received is unclear. There is probably considerable uncertainty in people's minds about the matter, because the legislation that defines Scottish bank holidays does not require Scottish banks to take those holidays. Almost no Scottish bank—probably none of them—has a bank holiday schedule that conforms to Scottish bank holidays as defined in the appropriate legislation. There are a series of issues there.
The overarching point is that—quite reasonably—many of the things that happen in the postal world have been translated into the electronic world. However, many of the things that work in the postal world simply do not work in the electronic world. I am not at all clear that the draft order before us is drafted in a way that will mean that we will have an e-mail system for interacting with government that becomes trusted, is reliable and delivers the benefits that we want. If we start off on the wrong foot with the initial interaction, that will inevitably devalue and debase people's trust in that way of working. That is why I am making much more of a meal of this matter than the minister might expect. I want the proposals to work, which I think is vital.
Having said all that, if the minister and her officials can provide the necessary advice, I will, with caution, support the motion on the draft order. We have until 6 September, which is quite a lot of time on the calendar, if not in parliamentary days, during which we can consider the matter further in various ways. I will be interested in the minister's comments. Thank you for your tolerance, convener.
You are welcome.
I must say at the outset that, not having been such an aficionado of e-mail as Mr Stevenson has been since 1980, I am glad that I have my colleagues with me this morning. I will defer to them in answering Mr Stevenson's detailed questions. I accept his genuine support for the policy and his desire to get it right.
Some local authorities have already been taking forward the provisions that are covered by the draft order. We have drawn from their experience to examine and address some of the issues involved. I hope that that has been reflected in the draft order. My other comment—on the least techie of Mr Stevenson's questions—is on the point about spoofing. I recognise the issue of whether or not it can be guaranteed that the person named as the sender is the person who sent the message. Although I do not have any explanation as to why people want to do such things, we must accept that the same thing can happen now, under the present system: someone can submit a written application that is not in fact from the person from whom it is supposed to be.
I recognise that we need to address some of those problems in making the proposed changes. We will try our hardest to ensure that any system that is put in place is suitable for delivering the planning service that we want people to have. It is about making the system more accessible.
With that, I ask Michael Lowndes to answer some further aspects of Stewart Stevenson's questions. Christine Munro will answer the rest.
Michael Lowndes (Scottish Executive Development Department):
Mr Stevenson made the very appropriate point that the electronic transmission media involved are extremely diverse. We deliberately did not attempt to set out in the text of the draft order specifications for the performance of electronic communications or service standards. Those are technical issues, which we will address in the circular that is to accompany the order. We will very much bear in mind the points that Mr Stevenson makes.
The expression "ordinary course of transmission" will change over time, as technology develops. We will give additional consideration to whether we can clarify the meaning.
Turning to the comments about article 4(3), on the phrase "capable of being accessed", there are two situations to consider: either an applicant is sending a communication to a planning authority or a planning authority is responding to an application that has been sent to it. If a private individual initiates an exchange of electronic communication, it must be assumed by the planning authority that they are willing to continue using electronic communication for the purposes of their application. The provision bears more on the situation in which an applicant wants to send an electronic communication to a planning authority. They need to satisfy themselves that the authority is capable of accessing that communication. That is another issue that we will deal with in the circular, as is the issue of planning authorities having electronic communication systems that are capable of acknowledging the receipt of messages, which is a very important qualification.
In the circular, we will also pay attention to the definition of when an e-mail has been received. Until now, we have assumed that an e-mail is received when the message has been received by the recipient's terminal, irrespective of whether the recipient has read it.
Christine Munro (Scottish Executive Legal and Parliamentary Services):
The provisions on working days are designed to give the sender and the recipient of the electronic communication some certainty if they are not sure when the communication would be deemed to have been received because, for example, they sent it over a weekend or on a holiday. Under article 6(3), they would be able to be certain that the communication had been deemed to be received the next day. In other words, if there is any question about whether there was a holiday in the area in which the communication was received, the sender could be satisfied that it would be considered to have been received on a day when the office, or wherever it was being accessed, was open.
When a sender sends a transmission, they will have to be satisfied whether a day is a working day or a bank holiday in much the same way that they would if they were posting something. If someone who posts something is unsure whether a particular day is a holiday, they make provision for that and give themselves enough time; the situation is much the same with an electronic communication. However, we can assume that, if something is sent by post but the post cannot be delivered, the item would be considered to have been received in an office on the next day that that office was open.
I can see how that applies to the recipient—the public body—but how does it apply to the individual, who might be a mobile member of the public and therefore potentially subject to different holidays? For example, I am in Parliament for some of the week and in my constituency for the rest of the week. There are points in the draft order that mean that the time at which the applicant receives something is of essence.
The point that you raise about somebody possibly moving around or being in a different area is the reason why the provisions are designed around where the recipient might be. The idea is that the recipient of an electronic communication is not under any obligation to have been considered to have received. The sender must realise that, when the e-mail is sent, the recipient might be able to say, "I wasn't able to get that communication because it was a holiday, but we are taking it as having arrived on the next working day."
The deeming provision in article 7(2) provides that a person who uses electronic communication agrees to such communication for further exchanges in connection with the procedure. It is for the person who initially makes the application to satisfy themselves that they will be able to access further electronic communications. If people are in any doubt about being able to access further communications, they can always say that they would prefer further communications to be in writing.
I wonder whether I can close this discussion, because we have gone as far as we are going to go. The proposed new subsection (5), as set out in article 4(3) of the order, contains a long list of exceptions relating to the serving of a variety of notices. I realise that this question might be difficult to answer, but are there any notices—other than those that are already excluded—that a public body might serve by e-mail? I am thinking of cases in which the time of receipt by a member of the public could be of legal significance.
I want to be sure that I understand the question. Are you asking whether there are notices, other than the ones in the new subsection (5), for which the date on which they are sent would be legally significant in effecting an application?
The minister has understood exactly.
The order has been prepared so that, if the serving of a notice by electronic communication is not excluded, it is enabled. Everything that is not deliberately excluded is enabled; in other words, if e-mail is not on the list, it can be done by e-mail.
In preparing the list of exclusions, we considered carefully the legal implications of the time when notices are served and we considered how people might be adversely affected if they were not able to receive notices electronically. We have tried to ensure that no one will suffer because notices can be served electronically.
My question is not on a technical matter, but I thank Stewart Stevenson for raising those issues. My question is to do with points that were raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which said that the legislation is still defectively drafted. However, the minister has said that she believes that the drafting is correct and that even if it were incorrect it would not prejudice the proper application of the order in practice. That is not a very satisfactory answer. That committee also expressed concerns about amendments to the legislation. The Executive responded to those concerns by saying that it would complete consolidation of this SSI and various other instruments
"when time and resources permit."
I am also a bit worried by that answer. No date is given.
I am concerned by the points that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has raised and I ask the minister to clarify the present position. As we can see from its report, the Subordinate Legislation Committee has raised such issues on numerous occasions and is still doing so. I would not be happy to agree to an instrument when the Subordinate Legislation Committee has raised such valid concerns.
I hope that the fact that we have made changes will not be regarded as something to be criticised. We have responded to issues that were raised and I do not think that we should be criticised for that. I reassure Ms White that we believe that the order will enable us to do what we seek to do, which is to enable people to access the planning system electronically and to be assured that, if they do so, their dealings with the planning system will be every bit as competent and efficient as they would have been had a different means of communication been used.
I ask Michael Lowndes to respond to the points that have been raised about the Subordinate Legislation Committee's concerns.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee asked when we would consolidate the general development procedure order and the general permitted development order. We have intended to consolidate both the orders for some time—we see their consolidation as being desirable, but it is not our highest priority at present. I am sure that committee members will recognise that the Executive is promoting an ambitious programme of modernisation and reform of the planning system and we hope that we will, when time and resources permit, be able to carry out those consolidations. However, we are at present unable to give a specific commitment on when that would be.
If I said that I would do something "when time and resources permit", that would mean that it was at the bottom of my heap and that I would never get there. Can you assure us that the situation is slightly better than that, and that something will be done?
It is about in the middle of my heap.
It is in the middle of your heap. If I understand the matter correctly—which is open to question—and setting aside the argument about when the e-mail actually arrives, the recipient is allowed seven days to respond. Is that correct?
Are you referring to the giving of notice when the applicant does not want to continue using electronic communication?
I meant an application for review of old mineral planning permissions, but there were several others where seven days—
I think that that is in article 7(2)(10); it is the period of notice for an applicant to indicate that they do not want to continue using electronic communication.
Are the various deadlines for electronic communication different from the deadlines for people like me, who write on a piece of paper and send that in by post? Are the e-mailites advantaged or disadvantaged in the timetable of events?
No. Any time limits that are set down in legislation in relation to an application or an appeal that is carried out in the normal way, by post, would be no different from e-planning. The time limits would be exactly the same.
Thank you. That is what I wanted to know.
I welcome any measures that will help to modernise the planning system and speed it up. That will have benefits for individuals and business interests. I was a bit worried when Stewart Stevenson started asking so many technical questions; I thought that we might have got it wrong or that there were issues that we might have missed.
I would like to ask some simple questions. Can you assure me that if we pass the instrument, neighbour notifications will be carried out in the same way, and that they will be delivered in paper form? Can you confirm that the process of dealing with an application through electronic means should be by mutual agreement, and that the applicant, whether an individual or a company, has to agree that the process will be done electronically? Can you give me any information on pilot projects that have been carried out by local authorities in Scotland? Will electronic transmission and the process for dealing with the application be agreed by the applicant, or the agent on the applicant's behalf, if the applicant is dealing with an architect or whatever?
I will seek to address Cathie Craigie's questions first and any additions can come from my colleagues.
Cathie Craigie is correct that the Executive is determined to modernise the planning system as a whole. I am aware that the committee will later this morning receive a presentation on how we are making progress along that road to make the system more efficient for applicants, for people who are concerned with developments in their areas and for other interested parties.
The order that is under discussion is part of that process. Michael Lowndes referred to his pile of things that need to be done, which he has partly because so much work is going on to develop the planning system. We accept that the matter that Sandra White and Donald Gorrie asked about needs to be dealt with. It would be incorrect to say that it will be dealt with immediately, but we recognise that there must be action.
I understand that neighbour notifications will continue to be issued initially on paper, as they are at the moment. As for whether the process will operate by mutual agreement, the electronic system will operate only if the applicant requests it. There is no question that local authorities will require people to apply by e-mail. The system will enable people to use whatever form of application most suits them and their circumstances—it gives them another option. The system will operate by mutual consent, because it will work at the applicant's behest.
I ask Michael Lowndes to give the committee examples of what the pilots have covered.
Several authorities have made considerable progress on preparing e-planning systems—most notably East Lothian Council, Stirling Council and the City of Edinburgh Council, which are in an advanced state of preparation for operating e-planning systems. The Executive has formed an e-planning group with all local authorities to share information and to explore technical issues that relate to the operation of e-planning systems. Around Scotland, some authorities are very advanced on, and are almost ready to operate, e-planning, whereas others are in different states of preparation. Through the e-planning group, we intend to disseminate as much information as authorities need about how to establish and operate e-planning systems.
Have the pilots dealt with the technology and the equipment? I was looking for information on applications by individuals or companies that have used the pilots. Do you have information about people who have used an electronic system to determine and process their applications?
I am not familiar with the detail of what East Lothian Council, Stirling Council and the City of Edinburgh Council do at the moment. If the minister agrees, we will gather that information and write to you.
I am sorry that North Lanarkshire Council was not involved in the pilots; I am sure that Cathie Craigie would know much more about them if that had been the case. I visited the City of Edinburgh Council to see the work that it has been doing and to discuss the pilot with planners and a few invited people who had submitted applications. Those people felt that the move was positive and that no significant problems had arisen with submitting and processing applications electronically. People felt that the system offered another mechanism for making applications and that they had been able to access it.
That council also produces lists of applications that can be accessed on a web page, so people can see those lists without having to go to a planning office or another council office. That is a way of opening up the system so that more people can be aware of what is happening in planning and what applications are being registered.
The thrust is to open up the planning system, make it more accessible, make it easier to understand and give people the opportunity to analyse and obtain information about planning applications that have been submitted, which was previously more difficult to do.
I am raising these issues because we want the legislation to work. I want to ensure that there is a proper legislative process. That is why I am seeking clarification that the issues that the Subordinate Legislation Committee, other members and I have raised will not stop the legislation being implemented properly. Cathie Craigie mentioned neighbour notification, which is referred to in paragraph 2 of paper COM/S2/04/23/1. You said that initially such notification would be available on paper. I was concerned about that, because the paper states that neighbour notification will be exempt from the provisions of the instrument and that people will be able to get a paper copy. I do not want to take up all of the committee's time, but could you write to us to clarify what you meant when you used the word "initially"? Is there a timescale for stopping publication of the documents on paper? I need to be reassured that the points that have been raised will not stop the legislation being implemented, because we want to tackle the planning situation.
The final contribution will be by Patrick Harvie. We will then hear from the minister again.
I share members' enthusiasm for getting the system to work properly. Can you say something about how the instrument will engage communities and objectors? We have said a lot about how the relationship between applicants and planning authorities can be managed through electronic systems, but not much about objectors. Will people be able to see or to hear on the grapevine that an application has been made in their neighbourhood and to get detailed information on the planned development from their council's website so that they can lodge an objection? In the past, I have submitted information for a planning objection by e-mail, but only after phoning up to ask whether it was okay. There was no obvious route in for that.
I would like you to comment for the record on two issues relating to access. First, various aspects of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 apply to websites and so on, but many public authorities are still not very good at addressing the matter. Will attention be paid to that? The second issue is access for people who use free software. Many public authorities put out information in electronic forms that are not available to people who use free software. Will attention also be paid to that point?
I have referred to my visit to the City of Edinburgh Council, where I examined the planning lists that the council provides. People may access that list, see what applications have been made and decide whether they object to them. We should provide additional information in ways that suit people's circumstances and we should make it possible for them to seek that information. That is an appropriate way of encouraging people to become involved in the planning system.
If the committee agrees to the order today, it is important that we ensure that the work of the e-planning group to which Michael Lowndes referred is progressed, and that all local authorities reach the stage of being able to deliver the service. We must also publicise it, because there will be no point in our having the system if people do not know that it is available. Patrick Harvie said that he had to make the initial phone call. We want local authorities to ensure that people in their communities know what is available—that will be one of their responsibilities.
This is not the end of the line when it comes to developing electronic processes to provide services. I am sure that there will be developments in the future. The comment was made earlier that it looks in some ways as if the legislation is open-ended. That is related partly to the fact that there will be on-going developments in service but also to the fact that there will, no doubt, be on-going development of the technology that is available. We want where possible to be able to adapt to that development. It is important to be open to change, so we must acknowledge that technology will develop.
It is absolutely essential that provisions of this sort be based on our equal opportunity principles, and that people with disabilities and people from ethnic minority communities be given the same opportunity to use the system as everyone else. We need to be aware of the particular issues that they may face in doing so and to build that consideration into the system.
I also asked a question about software.
The software point is something that we will deal with in a planning advice note that will be issued later in the year. Through the order, we are trying to remove legal impediments to the use of e-planning. The technical issues that we have taken note of will be addressed in the circular and a planning advice note. Advice will also be disseminated from the e-planning group.
Can we go back to Sandra White's final point?
Yes.
Sandra White referred to the minister's statement that the initial notification to neighbours who have an interest in an application would be by post. We used the word "initially". The whole principle of the e-planning order is that applicants can choose whether to use electronic or postal communication in any planning procedure. If a neighbour received postal notification of a planning application in their neighbourhood, they could choose whether to communicate with the planning authority by post or electronically. Nothing more sinister than that is meant.
We have given the order more of a hearing than I expected.
Motion moved,
That the Communities Committee recommends that the draft Town and Country Planning (Electronic Communications) (Scotland) Order 2004 be approved.—[Mrs Mary Mulligan.]
The question is, that motion S2M-1403, as printed on the agenda, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Abstentions
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Motion agreed to.
Might I raise a timing issue?
Let us finish the procedure first. I ask members to agree that we report to the Parliament on our decision and our consideration of the order. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
If members have any concerns that they would like us to report to Parliament, this is the appropriate time for them to raise them.
I note that the last date for overturning the order is 6 September. In parliamentary terms, that gives us very little time. I abstained from the vote because I want to read the Official Report and ensure that I am satisfied, not because I am trying to impede the progress of the order. I have another slightly more complicated point to make that I do not want to raise in public; therefore, I shall write to the minister separately and copy you into that correspondence, convener.
None of that affects our reporting to Parliament but, in my view, there are issues that require further consideration. I hope that the minister and her team will read the Official Report carefully and ensure that Parliament and the committee have a more considered opportunity to respond to some of the points. It might be useful for us to indicate in our report to Parliament that that opportunity has been asked for and that the minister has committed to giving it.
Would that be acceptable? The Official Report will be available and a motion will be lodged in Parliament, at which time such matters can be raised by individuals within or outwith the committee.
I am grateful to Stewart Stevenson for the note that he sent us, which we read this morning. If there are points in that note on which we feel we could elaborate further, I will be happy to write to Stewart Stevenson. I will also send a copy of that letter to the convener. If members wish to raise further points, we will try to use the time that is available to us, if not parliamentary time, to respond to some of them.
I thank the minister for her attendance and suspend the meeting for two minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—