Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I love the hon. Gentleman’s interventions. I must say that I am really grateful to the many right hon. and hon. Members and members of the press who have been so determined to find out exactly what went on in the Leader of the House’s office on Monday night, and I think I can fully reassure all colleagues on three very important points: first, we went for a thin and crispy base; secondly, there were absolutely no cheesy bites; and, thirdly, I made sure that there were fresh carrot sticks for all my guests. I hope that I have now cleared that up.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the meaningful vote—he is right to do so. On the one hand, anything other than a straightforward approval of the deal will bring huge uncertainty for businesses, consumers and citizens but, on the other hand, any motion of the House is a matter for the House to decide. As we have noted on many occasions, the Speaker will decide whether to accept amendments in the usual way.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about my comments, which I did anticipate, because he tweeted that he was going to ask me—[Interruption.] Yes, it was helpful. I want to address the matter seriously, because a lot of people are concerned. When I was a Back Bencher, I established with Conservative colleagues something called the Fresh Start Project, which was about seeking fundamental reform of the European Union, and it could be said that we really took our duties seriously. We travelled the EU and met like-minded politicians from both sides of the political spectrum. We really did our homework, and proposed a profound, fundamental set of reforms right across all areas of the EU, with a genuine desire to see a reformed EU that the UK would remain in. As someone who grew up as a member of the EU, as an awful lot of people in this country did, it seemed that reform was the No. 1 priority.

It became apparent during the discussions between the previous Prime Minister and the EU, however, that reform is simply not on the table. That was very clear, and that was when my opinion changed. The European Union cannot expect to trap countries into its ambitions, which is why I am a very proud Brexiteer and very keen to promote the superb future that the UK will have once we leave the European Union next March.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There was misreporting about our Procedure Committee yesterday. We wrote to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and on no occasion did he ask us to change the rules. The situation, as outlined by the Clerks, is very clear: if there is no deal, the Government must lay a motion in neutral terms under section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Such a motion is unamendable, and attempts to politicise the office of the Speaker are completely outwith our rules and procedures. If there is a deal, there will be a vote under section 13(1) on an amendable motion, but if the Government are defeated in that vote, it defeats the deal.

In either case, Brexit proceeds under our procedure. It is now unstoppable and nobody in Parliament—[Interruption.] No, under the existing Act, nobody in Parliament can stop it, except the Government. Will the Government give me a categorical assurance that, whether or not there is a deal, or whether a deal is defeated, Brexit proceeds at the end of March and the Government will not delay it by a single day?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019. To clarify again: once a deal with the EU has been agreed, Parliament will have a vote on the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future partnership. Parliament will have the choice to accept or reject that deal. If Parliament accepts the deal, we will introduce an EU withdrawal agreement Bill to implement the agreement in domestic legislation; if Parliament chooses to reject the deal, the Government will be unable to ratify the agreement.

Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman is not only not taking part in this in the spirit that is intended, but casting aspersions on the Deputy Speakers, who also stand up for Back Benchers, stand up for what is right for our country and are perfectly good at taking the Chair. I do not understand why he should feel that the future of this great nation relies on one individual, which is what he seems to be suggesting.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is indeed a vitally important issue—it is so vital that an external body might be called for—but may I urge colleagues and the Executive not to conflate it with any campaign to get rid of the Speaker?

There is a good reason for me to say that. In centuries past, the Executive, and other forces in Parliament, tried to remove Speakers. It is vital to the independence of the House of Commons, and the independence of independent-minded Back Benchers, that the office of the Speaker is inviolate. That does not mean that he can behave badly or, for instance, do anything criminal, but he should not be the subject of a political campaign, because if that happens, Parliament, and the independence of the House of Commons, will suffer. Will the Leader of the House therefore assure me that when she meets the Commission on Monday, there will be absolutely no pressure on the Speaker from the Executive, and that we will deal with this as an issue, not in terms of personalities?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The House will have heard what my hon. Friend has to say. As I have said all the way through, what the House Commission will be doing is reviewing the recommendations in Dame Laura’s report and taking action as it sees fit. That is not a matter for me; that will be a matter for the House Commission.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Lady can think it is good or not think it is good—it is entirely her choice. I do not mind. I am simply stating the factual position, but I think it is important to be sensitive to the fact that there is very considerable upset at the idea that people will not have seen a document about which there is to be a statement and upon which the Secretary of State has come to be questioned. People observing our proceedings from elsewhere might think that is a slightly curious state of affairs.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I was going to make my normal plea for us to leave the building at the end of this month and lock it down for three months so we can get on with repairing it, but I am struck by what has been said, particularly by you, Mr Speaker. I am a friend of the Government and, frankly, I think it is pretty bad that journalists were given this document at 9 am when we Back Benchers have had no chance to read it. If I am lucky enough, I will ask a question on the statement. You will not want me beetling out of the Chamber to try to read the document. How can I possibly understand it? Of course I could do what I normally do and rubbish it before I have even read it but, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, we are supposed to be a grown-up Parliament. It would have been possible for the Government to have taken us into their confidence and to have allowed us to start reading the document half an hour ago, at least.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken, as he always does, with great eloquence. If I may say so, the Leader of the House will take what view she wants of what he says, but he has said it with very considerable style. I think there will be a feeling about the matter, but let us hear what the Leader of the House has to say.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

It is always a great pleasure to work with the hon. Gentleman on providing time for Back-Bench debates, and I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee—all Members will be delighted to see the debate that has been selected for next Thursday.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is now some time since our debate on the restoration and renewal of Parliament, which I and my colleagues caused to happen. We were told then that there is a present fire risk to this Chamber and royal palace, yet we are still waiting for action. If there is a present fire risk, we should be setting up fire doors and stopping up vents, and one way we can start that work is by closing this building during the entire summer recess and getting on with it. If there is a fire risk, let us deal with it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important issue, and I hope I can assure all hon. and right hon. Members that we are getting on with the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, as per the instructions from this House. He will realise that immediate issues of health and safety regarding fire, falling masonry or any other risk are things that the strategic estates programme works on instantly—they are not subject to the longer timeframe of restoration and renewal. My hon. Friend nevertheless makes a good point, and I am always happy to meet him and update him on our progress.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This arises directly from business questions, during which we made reference to the Delegated Legislation Committee that is due to sit on Monday afternoon to discuss the abolition of Christchurch Borough Council. Because this hybrid instrument affects Christchurch exclusively, I applied to serve on the Committee that will consider it—I made my application to the Selection Committee. I hoped that I would then be able to raise in Committee the criticism that has been made from the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as well as issues relating to the instrument being a retrospective measure, which, as I said, is the subject of potential legal proceedings. What can be done to reverse the Selection Committee’s decision that I should not be allowed to be a full member of the Delegated Legislation Committee? It is surely right that minority interests, particularly when one constituency is uniquely affected, should be able to be fully represented on a Committee. Obviously, I can attend the Committee, but I cannot participate fully in it. Is there any remedy available through which I can try to get myself on to that Committee?

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his point of order, and I will respond to it when I have heard the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh).

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, may I say that no one in this House has worked harder on the issue than he has? He is the local Member, and he has fought almost a one-man campaign. It defies logic and belief that he is the one person who should be excluded from the Committee. He has a right to be heard.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch and to his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who has just spoken in his support. My response is as follows. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent the hon. Member for Christchurch from attending the Committee. Moreover, if he wishes to speak in the proceedings of the Committee, he will be eligible to do so, and I am sure that, under any fair-minded Chair, he will have the opportunity to do that. I accept that the non-appointment of the hon. Gentleman to the Committee is an important detriment so far as he is concerned, but it simply means that although he can attend and speak, he cannot vote if he is not a member of the Committee.

Secondly, no obvious means occur to me whereby the decision can be reversed. There is no procedural opportunity via the Chair, for example, or initiated by anyone other than the Government via the Chamber. Some people might think—I think this is the gravamen of the point raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough—that it is perhaps less than collegiate, kind or courteous on the part of the powers that be knowingly and deliberately to exclude the hon. Member for Christchurch from the Committee. Unfortunately, in matters of this kind, the Chair has no responsibility for collegiality, courtesy or kindness. The Leader of the House, however, is an extremely senior figure in our political system. As she has pointed out, she is well aware that she is not just the Government’s representative in the House, but the House’s representative in the Government. She may feel that she does have such a role, and she may or may not wish to be sensitive to the concerns that her hon. Friends have raised, but that has to be a matter for her. I might suggest that perhaps she and the hon. Gentleman have a cup of tea together. I have known the hon. Gentleman for over 30 years, and he is a formidable parliamentarian. Certainly, he should be treated accordingly.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

It is just as well that I genuinely like the hon. Gentleman, because I have to suspend my disbelief when it comes to some of the remarks that he makes. Let me gently correct him: the House is not crumbling. The infrastructure within it is the problem. The House, as he will see, is beautiful, and it is not crumbling. As for his recommendation for lessons on peace, love and understanding, I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, would like to see more of that in this place. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s desire for us all to work together, and as Leader of the House, I do all that I can to ensure that we show each other that love and understanding.

The hon. Gentleman talks about Opposition day debates. We issued a clear proposal that when an Opposition motion was approved by the House, a Minister would make a statement within 12 weeks to inform the House of exactly what steps had been taken to address the issues raised, and that continues to be the case.

The hon. Gentleman talks about EVEL—English votes for English laws—which is indeed designed to stop Scottish votes for English laws. It is important for Members on both sides of the House to recognise that it is a consequence of devolution, when a number of the nations that make up the United Kingdom were rightly keen to be able to manage their own affairs more closely. It is right that Members who come to this place from those nations should not be able to vote on laws that affect only England, or England and Wales.

The hon. Gentleman laughs at those who are frustrated by the House of Lords, but surely he recognises its role as a revising House with very useful expertise that often improves legislation and makes a genuine contribution to the work of the House of Commons.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If there is to be a decant, it is vital for it to be as short as possible. On that, we are all agreed. I personally believe that the builders should work triple shifts and not do what builders traditionally do, which is to stay as long as possible. Is it my right hon. Friend’s opinion that, when we set up the legislation, only the MPs and peers on the sponsor body should vote, so that we can get a grip on this?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because he has been a passionate advocate for the restoration and renewal of this place, and I am sorry, as he will no doubt be disappointed by yesterday’s decision. While that decision confirms action, it is not action along the lines that he would wish to see, and I am very sympathetic to his personal view that in staying in this place we could do the job more efficiently and effectively. In direct response to his question about how the sponsor body will be set up, it will have a majority of parliamentarians, and their role will be to reflect the range of views across both Houses on precisely what the delivery authority should be tasked with delivering.

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am also very fond of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but I do disagree with him on one fundamental. What the whole House is united about is our understanding that we need to get on with this job. That is why I have lived and breathed this issue with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who is sitting on the Front Bench, why we took the motion to the Backbench Business Committee with the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), and why we have constantly encouraged the Government to bring these motions forward.

The work needs to be done, but the question I have to pose is, if this work is so important—if the building is so dangerous—why, in these decant options, are we waiting until 2025? That is the question we have to ask. I ask why the work is not proceeding far faster and at a pace. I ask myself why we still have so few fire doors and why the Library corridor, which is 100 yards long, has no fire door in it. Those are the sort of points we should raise. We are united—I say this to the hon. Member for Rhondda—on the need to take action, but I do ask why, if this work is so urgent, we are waiting until 2025. This whole debate about the decant has muddied the waters. Frankly, the Government should have been taking action years ago. If it is inconvenient to us, so be it. That is the most important point.

When my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire and I first saw the report, we were not saying that we were the experts. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) that nobody suggested we were setting ourselves up as experts. I deliberately went out and consulted experts; I did not just consult my own conscience.

Like everybody else, I love this place, but I am not so important, and we are not so important. What about the 1 million people who visit this place every year? What about the fact that this building is the iconic centre of the nation, particularly as we try and resolve the very difficult questions of Brexit? Do we really want to take the enormous political decision, at this very difficult time for our nation, to move lock, stock and barrel from the iconic centre of the nation?

Members should understand that if we vote for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)—it is the crucial amendment tonight—we are taking the decision. It is not motion No. 2 tabled by the Leader of the House and it is not asking for further assessment. If we vote for the amendment, we will be taking the decision now, and there will be no going back on it—we will have to move out. Members should not believe that it will be for only five years. They should look at the Canadian Parliament. I predict that we will be out of this building for 10 or even 12 years. The Canadian Parliament, which is building a replica Chamber, is moving out for 12 years. We have to think of our constituents and ask ourselves this question: do we really believe in this at this time of unparalleled austerity? In particular—I have seen Opposition Members make this point many times—do we believe that we should take the decision this evening to spend £5 billion up-front on our own workplace? It is a very difficult decision and a very difficult argument to make to our constituents.

When we started consulting experts, many other issues really got us worried. For instance, not a lot has been said so far about the fact that the decant proposal is to build a replica Chamber. Although we have heard a lot about the Joint Committee, it did not get all its facts right: it wanted to build the replica Chamber in the courtyard of Richmond House, but unfortunately, it was five metres out. That is not a very competent process. Therefore, the Leader of the House was right that we cannot risk voting for the amendment, because there has not been sufficient assessment of the proposals. When it says that this is a unanimous report, it has to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who was on that Committee. He has now changed his mind—

[Mr John Hayes]

rose—

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I cannot give way very often because the Speaker asked me not to speak for long, but I had better give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Hayes]

To be fair to the Leader of the House, as I think we want to, she has been absolutely clear that the proposal is to demolish Richmond House—she has been certain about that—and to build the replica Chamber nearby us. The message we would send to our constituents is simple: not only have MPs voted to leave Parliament, but they have voted to build another building to occupy and another Chamber a stone’s throw away. What a nonsense!

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Could we imagine for a moment the United States Congress doing this, or the French National Assembly? This is actually on the table. [Interruption.] The United States Congress is building a replica Chamber? I think not.

[Dr Johnson]

On the original costings of £3.52 billion for the full decant, I was told today in a meeting with the business director of the project that at the time, they assumed that a building was available of the right size and in the right location. In fact—it has not actually been properly costed yet—the estimate is that the new work on Richmond House would cost an additional £550 million.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We are worried, and we are right to be worried, about the costs of the replica Chamber. It has been said to me that it may be necessary at times, if we carry on with this work—nobody is denying that we should proceed with it as fast as possible—that this Chamber may have to leave. I fear that if the replica Chamber is built, we will be out of the Palace of Westminster for up to 10 years. We will be too comfortable, so we have looked for and have consulted on alternatives. We tracked down Sir Michael Hopkins, the architect of Portcullis House. Nobody had raised this idea with him before then—he built the most bomb-proof, the most secure and the most expensive, by metre, building in the country—but the atrium of Portcullis House is exactly the right width, with this Chamber and the Division Lobbies, for an emergency Chamber for a few months. It would not be too comfortable there, but it is possible. Westminster Hall has been mentioned. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), mentioned Church House, which is built to bomb-proof standards. There are alternatives if we have to move out, so get on with it.

The argument that the Joint Committee has established beyond peradventure that it is cheaper to have a full decant is not accepted by many experts—I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. It was not accepted in the Deloitte report, which talked about net cost analysis. The Joint Committee report did not take sufficient cognisance of the cost of the replica, the work of the patch-up, which will have to be done in the coming years and months, the security costs and the VAT costs. All these costs have been factored into the Deloitte report. There is no time to go into detail, but do not accept the facile argument about the two proposals. We have the decant proposal, which would stop 1 million people a year visiting this building and have all the other disadvantages that I have talked about—do not accept that the decant proposal is much cheaper. Many accountants and experts take an alternative view.

Before we proceed to a vote, let us listen to the hon. Member for Ealing North and remember the thousands of employees working in this building. Of course, we want them to be safe, but we also want them to have a job, and what would happen with a full decant? This is urgent. We must get on with the work now, build the fire doors and so on, and let us remember this historical point—the hon. Member for Rhondda has made many historical points, and I will end on this one: when this House of Commons Chamber was destroyed by firebombs in 1941, Winston Churchill and Clement Attlee, representing the best in their two parties, made a conscious and absolute decision that this House of Commons would not be bombed out of its historic home, and that was why we moved to the Chamber of the House of Lords.

I commissioned an architect, pro bono, who proved conclusively that this would be perfectly possible. He looked at all the wiring issues, the sewage issues, all that we have talked about, and found that it would be perfectly possible. Are we really being told that in this day and age we cannot divert sewerage and electrical wiring? They do it all the time in the private sector. They build pop concert arenas for tens of thousands of people in two or three days, but we are told by the experts that it is impossible to resolve this problem. I return to my historical point: when the chips were down in 1941, Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill decided that this Chamber would not move from this building. I therefore urge colleagues to vote down the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch and vote for motion No. 1. We must get on with the work.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly, of course, would welcome the Backbench Business Committee deciding to have a further debate on R and R. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the demand for debate on that. If Members want to do a tour of the basement to avail themselves of some very useful information prior to the debate, the engineers stand ready to provide those at their convenience. It is very enlightening, so if you—I am sorry, if Members—I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, have already done it—wish to do that, please do.

The hon. Gentleman raises the important point about the way banks have treated SMEs. As City Minister, I had some grave concerns about that and investigated a number of cases. I am sure that he will have support from hon. Members if he wants to suggest further debates at the Backbench Business Committee.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for awarding me and 19 other colleagues a debate on the restoration and renewal of Parliament on Thursday 1 February because this has now forced the issue and we are now going to have a good debate. Can the Leader of the House say more about that?

If the second motion comes up for a vote because the first motion has not been passed, will the second motion be amendable? The motion I was going to put down for the Backbench Business Committee day debate was amendable, and was on the clear premise that, while we would set up a sponsoring authority, it would be on condition that this debating Chamber should stay in the Palace for the whole time. So if the second motion is passed, it is very important that it is amendable, so that this point of view can be put to the House.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Because of the seriousness of the decision before the House, the two motions will not be amendable; it will be a case of either the first motion or, if that falls, the second motion.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a significant constituency issue, which he is absolutely right to raise. I encourage him to take it up with Home Office Ministers, who I am sure will be keen to look at that specific case.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Let us never forget that, in the fight for freedom and justice in the war, Poland lost a quarter of its population.

Closer to home—I am sure the Leader of the House will agree with this—can we please have the debate on restoration and renewal on a substantive amendable motion as soon as possible? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I have different points of view, but we do think we should get on with this now. In a building such as this, fire is an ever-present risk, and the House needs to come to a conclusion quickly and to get on with the work, particularly on fire doors.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have explained to Members, we have taken representations that the debate should not be on a Thursday, and we are seeking an alternative date as soon as possible.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

As has been the case for a long time, I thoroughly admire the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to always talking down nuclear. I say gently to him that, as he will be aware, this country depends greatly on nuclear electricity generation to keep our lights on, and it will continue to do so. He will also be aware that our nuclear power plants are nearing the end of their useful life. We need projects such as Hinkley Point C, not just to generate local jobs and growth but to keep the lights on, as a low-carbon source of electricity generation that will take us into the decades ahead.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government will invest a third of a trillion pounds in the NHS during this Parliament. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £6.3 billion of additional funding to meet the pressures that the NHS is under. The Government will invest £3.5 billion in capital by 2022, and there is an additional £2.8 billion of resource funding to improve NHS performance and ensure that more patients receive the care they need more quickly. Conservative Members are fully committed to an NHS that works for all the people in our country, and she should bear it in mind that the NHS has been independently voted the best health system in the world.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I apologise for being late, Mr Speaker, but may I remind you that the labourer who turns up late at the vineyard is entitled to equal wages?

May I ask my right hon. Friend about the debate on restoration and renewal that will take place in the first week back after the Christmas recess? I urge her to lay her motion early, perhaps before the recess, because I will certainly table an amendment and I will need time to have it on the Order Paper for people to sign it, if you are kind enough to select it, Mr Speaker. Of course we accept that there should be the delivery authority and the sponsor board that the Leader of the House has spoken about, but some of us are worried that unless there is clear instruction to these boards of experts now, there will inevitably be pressure to build a replica Chamber and kick us out of the old Palace for many years. We want an amendment to test the will of the House on that matter.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest and engagement with the whole R&R project. He will be aware that the Joint Committee report set out:

“It is not possible to set a precise budget for the Programme at this stage. As part of further feasibility work it will be imperative, therefore, that a thorough business case should be prepared, balancing costs against value in order to assess and validate the preferred options in more detail.”

Work on the motion to establish a sponsor board and a delivery authority will be essential if we are to provide a proper evaluation of the options, but we will bring it forward as soon as we can.