 Felly, mae'r wych erdwyddon yn y bydd, rwy'n ei gweithio gwellfaedd y bydd gyda'r pergyl Annie Cameron. Miliadol yn gystafellol maesyouf addsurau cyflym yn newid. Felly, mae'n cael ei gwaith gweithio gynhwnt. Felly, mae'n gweithio gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio, ddych chi'n gweld am gylliannau 66% gan gylliannau that engagement with the arts is good for their preventative health agenda. Many cultural organisations do not have their own internal budget to develop solutions for health and social care. I wondered if you had any observations on how we can begin to square that particular circle. Hi, first of all, I thank you all for inviting me along today to speak. That is a really interesting question. I think that social enterprises have been playing with for many years how exactly they deliver on that. There are a variety of different ways that the Government could support the work around the development of resources so that social enterprises can meet the needs of our population. I think that we all agree the importance of culture, but there are various different approaches out there. Social prescribing is something that you have spoken about previously, I believe, within your committee meetings or something that has come up. It is definitely a way to look forward. It is certainly something that, if it is a real consideration of government, has to be addressed properly and resourced in the appropriate way. There is an issue around the development of work, so there are lots of social enterprises out there doing pieces of work around culture and around health that they are not necessarily being paid for. They are developing their own systems and they are delivering because it is of the need of their community as opposed to being paid for. I think that there is something about developing a voice for the sector, so cultural and creative organisations can start to communicate better with the health sector, start to explore exactly what that means without putting more strain on the organisations themselves. That is a difficult approach, but there are links with academia to explore exactly how those issues can be explored in a different way to how they are currently. I am not quite getting that right, but their systems in place, our social enterprises and our cultural and creative organisations are going about it in a different way. Can we explore exactly what they are doing, what the benefits are of them doing that and start to explore how we can resource those different ways of working, start to develop models that work and provide opportunities? I think that if you look at health and social care, I am no expert in health and social care, but the private sector is in there and making it work for them. Why can't we resource the third sector? Why can't we resource our cultural and creative organisations in the same way, if that makes sense? I am not sure that I am really answering your question so much as I am throwing up more questions, if that makes sense. I think that there is an awful lot of work to be done. There is work going on out there, but it is under the radar. I am sorry, I do not think that I have answered your question there. You have been very helpful. If anything you have highlighted that is an issue, one of the things that you refer to in your submission is the spring project. I just wondered if you could tell us a bit more about that. It sounds fascinating. Yes, absolutely. Again, I am not at the heart of this project, but I think that what is important here is the collaborative approach that has happened around the spring social prescribing project. A collaborative approach that has equality at the heart of it is really important. Developing those relationships on the ground and empowering community-led organisations to take a lead has been a really important aspect of the work that they have been doing. I would note that they have been doing that for quite a long time. The spring project is not new. It has been something that has been going on for a few years now. If social prescribing is something that you are interested in, it would be definitely worth having a conversation with the folk involved with the spring project. I am sure that they would be interested in linking with Government in some aspects, but I think that they would be interested in linking beyond the health and social care directorate and linking into the cultural directorate and to other areas, which goes back to the point that I had made about the importance of collaboration. Can I turn now to questions from colleagues and start with Jenny Minto? Thank you, Sarah, for coming along. It must be quite daunting with just one person on the panel, so congratulations. I would like to follow on from the questions that Donald Cameron has been asking. I was really interested in the spring project and noted that Healthy Options Open is involved in that, which is in my constituency. I know the fantastic work that it does. It was interesting because you talked a bit about collaboration, the fact that if you can give us any more information about the fact that the project is a collaboration between Scottish groups and Northern Irish groups. How has that worked? Perhaps there is something that we can learn from the fact that the funding is coming from different sources, if you have any further information on that. Again, I am not an expert in the finer details. I have been involved in the finer details of the work, but going back to that collaboration, what is key here is that the people who came together originally had a vision for their organisations and for meeting the needs of their communities. So it has been taken from a grass-root approach. It has not been a top-down approach, and I think that that is probably key to its success. I would say, however, that although I have put the spring social prescribing into that document, social prescribing is not working terribly well elsewhere in the country because it is not resourced. There is an attitude that social prescribing is happening and that it is the answer, but it is not being resourced. There are not the links with GPs in the way that they could be. That is down to capacity on both sides. There is not an understanding. What is lovely about the spring social prescribing project is that it started to develop some of that understanding and is able to share that. What I would say is that it is not normal. It is not happening elsewhere in the same way. It has attracted resource investment, it has attracted interest, and that is part of its success. That is probably to do with some of the voices that are involved as well. I think that that is fair. I asked Rob McGee last week from Arts, Culture, Health and Wellbeing Scotland about the whole thing of perception around social prescribing and the fact that members of the public may simply expect to go to the doctor and get antibiotics, and it might come as a bit of a shock, and it is how do you get over that barrier, I suppose. I think that Healthy Options in Oban has done that incredibly well. I am also interested again from the work, the preparation that you have done for coming to see us, you have put a survey out to your members. Is there anything additional, any real learning points that we can get from what the members have said to you? The membership is an interesting one because you get a variety of different answers in a variety of different ways. Sometimes it is about drilling down and picking up the phone to them and having those broader conversations. The message at the moment is that life is hard out there for organisations and that they need support. They need resource and financial support in some cases, but they need, beyond that, some support to create those stronger relationships at all levels. That is relationships within their own community, within organisations that already exist, but they need support to develop stronger relationships with national and local Governments. At the beginning, I had made a comment about the funding, and that came out really strongly around the idea that Government has, in the past, promised that longer-term funding, the three-year funding deals, which filters down to a variety of different practitioners. That is working with creatives themselves. There is a real concern—probably the strongest message that is coming out was that it has never been delivered on for various reasons. Most recent Covid has somewhat got in the way. There is a push from the sector to say that we can have longer, more supportive relationships so that we can start to develop and not have to constantly be chasing their tail, trying to just survive in the next year but rather to put in longer-term plans to really develop the work that they are doing. That is probably something that came out incredibly strong with everybody that I spoke to. Welcome, Sarah. I am just falling on from your last comment. I know that you are talking about multi-year funding settlements, but in addition to that, a number of cultural and creative organisations will have seen a freeze in funding level over the past few years, with effectively a reduction in real-term funding as a result of inflationary pressures and adopting fair work practices. What members are telling you about inflationary pressures and how you would see those mitigated through funding agreements? That is something that is really key to moving forward. You are absolutely right that organisations are working on less and less each year, which is making things tighter and tighter and making it quite difficult to deliver on fair work. Those are organisations that we are working with that fair work is at the heart of the organisation. It is something that they want to deliver, but many of them have been delivering for many years. However, as the purse strings are tightened, it becomes more and more difficult to make that happen. It is obviously up to Government to set budgets, but there is an ask that inflation is taken into consideration when funding organisations go back to longer-term settlements and to look at contracts and how contracts work, creating more opportunities. Organisations that are out there do not want handouts. They are happy to work for what they do, but what they want is a fair shout. They want to be able to tap into those funds and do it fairly and not constantly be having to scrabble around trying to make things work at the back. You will be aware that, when funding comes through, there are lots of caveats attached, so it might be that core funding is not available or capital funding is not available, which means that there is constant going to different people and trying to fit lots of different things together. I think that there is a more flexible approach to what does an organisation need to succeed and what do we need to make them and support them to become sustainable so that we can then move on and continue to support other organisations and that they can continue to support start-ups as well. Every day, we see organisations and social enterprise in the cultural and creative sectors supporting one another and supporting start-ups. I think that if you have a mature relationship that is about supporting them to move to the next step as opposed to just keeping them constantly in one place and struggling, I think that that is the way forward and is what people really are asking for. Thanks, Sarah. You have touched on that in your answer, but one of the recommendations that you have highlighted is about commissioning and procurement as a potential market for cultural and creative organisations. However, I can imagine that this sector is not necessarily as aligned as others in terms of providing goods and services, but you have noted that the Glasgow Connected Arts Network is an example of where that can work very well. I just wondered what more the Scottish Government and other public bodies can do to create potential markets for cultural and creative organisations? That is something that we have been working on for a little while. Within the social enterprise world, procurement many years ago would be cropped up as an issue. The Scottish Government put in a lot of support to allow the sector to start to develop opportunities. There was a project called Ready for Business at the time, which was a public sector facing in majority and was very much about educating and supporting the public sector so that it could understand how it could procure from the third sector. The back of that training has obviously come in and support has come in for the third sector to be able to upskill so that they were in a position to be able to take on contracts and bid in for contracts. Following the partnership for procurement team, they have very much been about that collaborative effect, so bringing groups together and recognising that one person running an organisation does not have the ability to deliver a massive contract, but can they come together to deliver that? I think that there is lots of learning there for the cultural and creative sectors. There is an opportunity to go out to the public sector and help them to understand what kind of commissioning they could be involved with. Sometimes there is a lack of imagination perhaps in how commissioners are working. I think that the cultural and creative sector is there perfectly to support some of that imaginative way of working. There is real interest in the sector. If you are sitting in a room full of creatives and you start talking about procurement, they are interested, but there is a lack of opportunities. I think that there is work to be done in building the market. At the back of that, there is work to be done with the sector to upskill them, to provide those opportunities for them to come together, such as the GAP project, which is about that collaborative work. I would say that the GAP is not just about procurement but also about funding, so it is allowing them to come together. I guess going back to that previous question about collaborative working around health, it is allowing them to go for particular projects that they can work in together. They can bring in those different practitioners that have those different pieces of expertise to allow them to deliver projects that they believe a particular community needs. I think that there is learning from other sectors that we could definitely take, and I think that with the right resource and investment, bringing the right groups of people to the table, we could certainly do that. We could certainly create a system where we are changing the way that procurement opportunities arise and opening up a market. That was very interesting, a similar situation with sustainable procurement as well. Thanks for your contribution, and over to you, Deputy convener. Thank you. On this subject, Sarah Boyack is a supplementary question. Thanks very much. It is really to follow on the first two sets of questions, both from Jenny Minto and from Maurice Golden. On the one hand, it is clear that there is quite a lot of support for the principle of social prescribing. You have got some very good experience on the ground that shows that it works. You have got the points that were made by Maurice about the lack of multi-year funding, which means that you cannot develop the connections with the health sector to enable people to be recommended, but equally the organisations cannot plan ahead and guarantee that there will be fair work. One of the bits of evidence that we have had in previous sessions is that Covid has just knocked the freelancers or the creative sector for six because it has become a hand-to-mouth existence and people have just had to move out of the sector. From where we are now, what would you recommend as a way to kickstart the fact that we do not have the networks and the funding? Is it getting money in place and a commitment to multi-year funding? How would you advise us to be asking the Scottish Government to do now to start getting the mechanisms in place? I think that there is probably a variety of different things. Certainly, the multi-year funding definitely needs addressing. That obviously only reaches a certain number of organisations that you do not fund everybody. I think that there is also an issue with a lot sitting alongside that. I believe that I mentioned it in the evidence was asking the Government to pay up on time as well. That is simple. You have got something agreed for April, but it is not paid to September. It is a really difficult situation to put people in. As we go forward into the new financial year, can we address that to make sure that, when funding is agreed, it is paid promptly to allow people to move on? If you are asking people to recover just now, but they have to survive for six months on their reserves, you have promised them money, but they do not know that that money is definitely going to come in. There is always that fear. They cannot deliver on fair work. They cannot start to work. I think that this is where it is really important. They cannot start to work with freelancers bringing in those creatives that have been struggling through Covid and have not had those opportunities. If you start to put that into place, making sure that we have that longer-term funding, making sure that we have that commitment to pay it away, then it has that ripple effect and starts to support the rest of the sector. However, while that is going on, obviously you are working very closely with Creative Scotland and the funding streams that they have, there are pieces of work to be done around that, particularly around the language used and reaching out beyond the usual suspects. I would note that one issue that I have come across repeatedly when working with cultural and creative social enterprises is the lack of connection between third sector support and cultural and creative sector support. There is that lack of joined-up thinking. I think that there is a need to bring those two areas together to get people understanding what is out there so that we are not duplicating efforts. Do Creative Scotland need to build a business support wing? I doubt it, because business support exists elsewhere, but the business support that exists elsewhere currently does not have the expertise for creatives. That is what we hear all the time. When they go for business support, there is a lack of understanding about what creatives actually do. I think that there is an awful lot to be done around that, but there are opportunities to talk directly to the sector and explore projects and ideas that they have working through the networks that already exist. Although there does not seem to be one voice for the cultural sector, I think that that would be pretty difficult, because there are so many industries in there. There are lots of voices, really strong voices, incredibly supportive, and although people have dropped out in many cases, they are still connected to those networks. Something that we talk about all the time is the importance of giving people the grass roots a voice and giving them the opportunity to explore their own solutions. Probably the key areas that I would ask would be longer-term settlement funding, with a commitment to pay quickly and efficiently, and to get rid of some of the bureaucracy around that as well, but also to start to explore that voice and to start to make those broader connections and support the networks that already exist out there so that they can tell themselves exactly what their members need and can put those provisions in place. I think that the support, if it goes straight to grass roots, they have to have a voice about what that support looks like. It can't be a top-down approach. The point that you made about business support for the creative sector in particular, given the circumstances, comes across quite loudly. In the questions that Jenny and Maurice asked, there was that disconnect between the ambitions and the reality. That is something that is definitely worth us reflecting on. The business of mainstreaming the funding of arts and culture in bigger infrastructure projects, whether it is town centres or whether we have talked in the past in this committee about the big projects for the health service as well. Looking at other countries, Ireland has been cited as an example where a percentage of the project itself is ring-fenced or earmarked for culture and arts. Do you think that we have anything to learn from that model? Absolutely. That is certainly something that I hear repeatedly. I think that there is a general feeling that culture is not respected, that it is left to last. It is seen quite often as the most effective. There is a panic sets in when projects are not being delivered on time. Let's bring in the creatives. They will be able to fix it for us. However, they are not valued and put right at the heart of projects. That is something that is felt. I do not know whether that is true across the board, but it is certainly something that I hear that is felt quite strongly in the sector. I think that there is a really strong desire, and I know that culture counts have been doing lots of work around the national planning framework and the importance of making sure that culture is right at the heart of that. I think that there is still a need to really drive home the importance of culture and the importance of culture in planning and projects. I think that ring fencing amounts to ensure that that is delivered would be fantastically useful. However, something that has also come back to me, and I may cause some division here between the creatives, but I am talking about the social enterprises that I work with. There is an anger quite often about public art and the way that it is created. Organisations are saying, why have they spent all that money on something that is going to sit in the middle of a roundabout when they could have spent that money on something that is a collaborative approach that we could have worked directly with the community with and worked in a completely different way. Again, that is possibly slightly diverse. I think that you might get some very different opinions if you are speaking to different artists, but from the social enterprises that I am working with, that comes across as a very strong opinion that they would really like to have a seat at the table. They would really like to be resourced and be allowed to have that impact and, with them, they would like to bring their local community as well. It is a twofold thing. It is not just about the creatives, but it gives that broader connection to the community and to the residents as well. I want to ask you about how we map out the good work that is happening around Scotland. Last week, we heard evidence that Creative Scotland is doing some of the mapping, but it perhaps excludes the organisations that are working with the NHS. I do not know if you have thoughts on how we do that. How do we get to grips with the extent of the work that is happening around Scotland? Do we approach that from a Creative Scotland point of view, or from a Sen Scott point of view, or are there other organisations that should be taking the lead and making sure that we understand everything that is going on and the value of that? That is a massive undertaking because of the sheer amount of work that is going on across Scotland. I certainly think that Creative Scotland has a role in that because of the relationships that it already has. However, an organisation does not have a relationship with Creative Scotland if it is not funded by Creative Scotland, and there are an awful lot of organisations that are not funded. There is the social enterprise census that happens every couple of years, funded by the Scottish Government. Within that, there is information about cultural and creative organisations that are social enterprises. It is very limited information. You will have more access to the data than I would, so it is perhaps something that you might want to explore. There is potentially something that could be done to insert more questions and develop the information that is gathered. However, that is just looking at social enterprises, not looking at the broader third sector and not looking at independent and sole traders. I suspect that there are probably a few different organisations that could come to the table to have that conversation. Certainly, the likes of SCVO would be useful to make those connections. Bondry Arts Scotland has a whole raft of different organisations that would be useful to bring to the table to have a conversation about what that looks like. If it is looking just at health, then, obviously, the NHS itself is the organisation to go with. We have some fantastic examples of organisations that are delivering on contracts or are a partner or are picking up the scraps, so to speak, and do not have an official relationship. It would be nice to be able to gather information and get a picture of what that looks like. We also have organisations such as Art Link Central in Stirling, who have a strong presence at the local hospital at Forth Valley Royal Hospital. It would probably be the type of organisation that might be worth having a conversation with. They, at one point, had a network and it was around prisons and health, working in prisons and health, because prisons are probably a useful connection to be making if you are looking at data around the work that is happening in prisons across the country. I think that there may be an issue around counting some of that stuff. It might be sports culture, and I hate to bring that up, because I am sure that you have had that conversation many times, but I think that for organisations, helping them to understand their own activity is part of the process of counting. What is culture, what is creative, and you might have to put some parameters on exactly what that looks like. It is a big piece of work, but we would be very interested in being linked in with a piece of work like that. Obviously, there is a big and intricate national picture. There is also the very local picture, and that leads me to the question about who leads on strategy and development. Are councils able to do that? Are they willing to do it? Is there inconsistency across Scotland? We heard last week about Renfrewshire that is doing some good work on social prescribing, but is it a bit of a postcode lottery as to how social enterprise and cultural enterprise organisations, however we wish to define them, are being supported? Is there good practice from community planning partnerships or elsewhere to point to how to do that effectively? I would agree that there is a complete postcode lottery. It entirely depends not just on the local authority but on the individuals in a role. As soon as somebody leaves a post, it can create huge issues and projects get dropped. We saw that with Centre Stage in Kilmarnock in the fantastic work that they were doing. They were working closely with a school member of staff changed and no longer work with that school because it all comes down to one individual. There is work to be done around policy to make sure that that is happening, to make sure that there is some sort of impetus to make it happen, to drive things forward. There are lots of little cases of great examples and great relationships, but I do not think that I could even say across one local authority that this local authority is doing it brilliantly because, again, it is just in particular areas. I do not think that anywhere has it right, and there are lots of opportunities out there. I think that there is the only way forward and up in the way that I feel at the moment. What needs to change then? Is it a duty on local authorities? Is it a commitment through community planning partnerships or something else that this has to be addressed rather than being dependent on, as you say, a good relationship between one officer in the council and bodies or whatever? I think that it has to fall on somebody's shoulder somewhere, and certainly within a local authority there should be some sort of responsibility taken, the same with the local health board as well. I think that I would be concerned about CPPs and their capacity, but they definitely have a voice, and it would be useful possibly to have that conversation with them. I am afraid that I do not know personally enough about how they operate to be able to comment on that, but it would definitely be worth having them at the table to have that conversation. It has to sit somewhere as a responsibility, so local authority and health board, but the issue is that, as soon as you do that, it takes away from grass roots, it takes the voice away from grass roots. I am not sure how you work that dynamic to ensure that the grass roots voices are valued, heard, at the table, are part of that planning process, as opposed to that top-down approach that local authority comes in and says that we are going to do this, which would happen in some areas. I am not saying every area, but it would happen in some areas. You really want to get to a position where it is not like that, it is grass root-led. Perhaps working with the CPPs is a perfect opportunity, but I would agree that the responsibility has to lie somewhere and possibly it is with local authorities and health boards, but maybe it is about the wording of that and the model that is developed around that. It seems like a difficult balance between ensuring that you have the conditions for creativity without over-formalising that to the point that you stifle that. One last question that is related to that is about monitoring and evaluation and around whether there is that capacity within the wider social enterprise and creative sector to really articulate what the sector does in the language that NHS and other bodies that have got harder targets can understand and go, oh yes, I can see that saving £6,000 or whatever, which I know is a bit dry, but I suppose that the chief financial officers of those organisations need to see that stuff. I am glad to have brought that up, because it is a bit of a bugbear of mine. When it comes to evaluation, for many years it has been put upon social enterprises to evaluate the work that they do to provide evidence that the work that they do is delivering what it says, and that goes beyond just delivering a project but delivering that social and environmental value that they do. My issue is that, on an organisation that already is working at full capacity and is already struggling and over-delivering, why should they be the ones to provide that evidence? In actual fact, is it something that Government, academia and other partners could be working with to ensure that that story is told and that the reliance is not put on to social enterprises? It actually comes from somewhere else to work with those grassroots organisations, but it is not put on them. I think that it is really unfair to ask people to respond to their community needs, which they are doing. We saw through Covid how quickly, and we see today, with the war in Ukraine, how many communities are leaping to drive things forward. To ask them to start to evaluate everything that they do is a big ask. You have quite often got one person running an organisation held up by a few volunteers, and those volunteers might have issues of their own and require support as well, so it is a big ask. I think that my ask from Government about creating that evidence approach would be support to do that. Do not place it on the shoulders of the social enterprises of the cultural and creative organisations themselves, but rather work with them, bring the resource and support to make sure that that evidence is collated. That makes a lot of sense. I have a question from Sarah Boyack. Thanks. It has been really good hearing where we potentially could get different funding streams. One of the things that you have mentioned in your evidence is the principle of local infrastructure projects. You mentioned it earlier today. Could you say a little bit more about that, the concept to the Percent for Art scheme, so that you see local investment? How would you try to make sure that that did reach local communities having an influence on what money should be spent on rather than, as you described it, something in the middle of a roundabout? Yes. This is something that has come from the culture council members. We are part of culture council. I am sure that you will all be aware of the work that they do. That is something that has come from that relationship, as opposed to the relationships with the social enterprises, if that makes sense, although some social enterprises are linked into that, too. I just wanted to clarify where that conversation comes from. It might be worth having a conversation with culture council and asking them for some more information on their thoughts on that, because I know that they have done some work, and I am sure that they would be happy to share what they have. Some of that conversation came originally from the conversations around participatory budgeting, which is hard to say. How that was happening in particular areas and the impact that that was happening. Obviously, there are conversations that are happening around the national planning framework and the opportunities around that. The conversation that is coming out is going back to exactly what I pointed out earlier about the value of culture and local arts. Telling that story, going back to the language that we are talking about with Mark, is trying to tell that story, to help people to understand the value of culture. That goes beyond just procurers and local authority. It goes to general public as well, helping them to understand the value of their own culture. When we are in a position of planning when we are in major infrastructure projects, it is understood that part of that money should go towards cultural and arts, as opposed to always lying with something. My issue is that there is the lack of imagination again. It is about working with creatives. They can come up with some really interesting pieces of work, dealing with issues at a very local level and working with that local community to ensure that you have that cohesive relationship going on. They bring in an awful lot to the table. It comes back to that value, making sure that everybody understands how important culture is. When we talk about local infrastructure projects and ring fencing funding for arts and culture, we are talking beyond public art projects. We are talking beyond that, and we are talking about something that is greater and involves more people. It brings in that the relationships and building of community as well. That is probably something that is quite important—the building of community as we go forward and supporting communities to come together as communities. I am not sure I have quite answered that right. No, but you have given us some points to go on in the future, so thank you very much for that, Sarah. Back to you, Dr Camino. I think that if no one else has questions, if I could finish, Sarah, with one final question. The Scottish Government's resource spending review document, which is the subject of this particular inquiry by the committee, states that it is heavily influenced by the Christie principles on the future of public services, which I am sure you are aware of. The Christie commission was published in 2011, and it has several points to it. We have talked about mainstreaming already, but it also places an emphasis on preventing negative outcomes from arising. In your view, what progress has been made in delivering a preventative approach since Christie was published back in 2011? That is quite a big question. I think that it is probably very limited. There are excellent pieces of work that have gone on that are continuing to go on. I wonder whether some of that work has been lost in recent years. The promise is sitting there, but other things have taken hold and taken more importance than some of that work has been put on hold. I think that when you are talking to social enterprises on the ground, not engaged with Governments, not engaged with local authority, not engaged with health boards, but just doing the work, I would say that their actions are all about preventative actions. All sits around that, but all is about supporting people. I think that I would probably have to go away and ask more people about that question, because I think that it is quite a big question, but I am not sure that the importance is put on it in the same way perhaps when funding is coming through, when opportunities are coming through. I think that maybe it has been lost a little bit, but to be honest, before I was willing to completely put 100 per cent behind that, I would like to go out to members and ask them just exactly that question. I think that the committee would be really interested in that, and we would be more than happy to allow you to do that, because we talk about preventative health a lot, but I think that in the widest of cultural contexts that would be really kind of you if you could canvas opinion in that regard and report back to us if that is okay. Yeah, absolutely. I can do that. I will be sure to speak to members and engage in opinion and can submit something to you. Excellent. Thank you very much. I thank you for attending the meeting on your own and for your time this morning. It has been a really useful session. With that, can I now suspend the meeting and we move into private session. Thank you.