Official Report 711KB pdf
Welcome back. The third item on the agenda is to take evidence on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill at stage 1, with a particular focus on the agricultural assets of Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management). I welcome Gemma Cooper from the National Farmers Union Scotland, Tom Cattanach from Fochabers estate, Hew Hunter from Whitehills estate, Jim Inness from Glenlivet estate and Brian Shaw from Applegirth estate.
We are already well behind schedule, so I ask members to ask short, sharp questions. If witnesses do not feel the need to respond to a particular question and feel that it has been well enough answered, they do not need to respond. If we proceed on that basis, we will get through this meeting in an appropriate fashion.
I will start with an obvious question. From the evidence that we have had, it strikes me that, although there will always be individual issues, in a general sense there is a degree of contentment with the Crown estate, and with Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management), in terms of its relationship with tenant farming set-ups. Is that a fair assessment?
Yes. We have come from a position, with the old Crown Estate, where we did not have any communication or say at all. Now we have established a working group and we are getting on very well with Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management). We like it. There are issues, of course.
As ever. Jim Inness, do you wish to concur with that?
I agree with it. We represent the Crown Estate’s four estates in Scotland—Applegirth, Whitehills, Glenlivet and Fochabers. We are the community of farmers. Our working group has come on by leaps and bounds, and we would like it to be advantageous for both sides, going forward.
Good morning, panel. Can I tease out some of the opportunities that are presented by the rural estate? Some of us visited tenanted farms and areas in the previous parliamentary session. We saw interesting models of things such as best practice in managing tenants and encouraging young farmers and young entrants, which is very important. We also saw interesting examples of innovation and management of the environmental wellbeing of the land. Do you see there being any other positive and possible opportunities?
I can answer that. The Crown Estate provides a unique opportunity for best practice in that, although it is mainly composed of secure agricultural tenants, there will be pieces of land that come back to it. It would be very positive if it had policies that were more in favour of getting young entrants into farming, perhaps by providing something akin to the starter farm units that the Forestry Commission offers. I think that the Crown Estate has a unique role to play in that and it is a really important opportunity, because at the moment, generally, opportunities are very limited.
10:45
I would say that we are quite fortunate to be on the Crown estate. Its management would like to see the wellbeing of the estate and the tenants within it, which is a healthy approach. Other landlords may be less scrupulous and less accommodating, so we have an opportunity to show best practice to the other landlords out there.
There is a possible case for a subsidised rent for new entrants to farming, to give them a start. It is in our submission. On the wider issue of rent reviews and sustainability for farmers in the tenanted sector, due account has to be taken of the social infrastructure of where you farm. It is not all about revenue. We have to keep the fabric of these communities intact. If we keep the community intact and the farming intact, the whole thing looks after itself. It is not all about revenue all the time. We have to be careful of how we manage rent reviews going forward.
One of the things that I have picked up in dealings with the tenant farmers on the Crown estate is a possible concern about the factoring arrangements. There is not an embedded factor on an estate or even an embedded factor for the whole of the Crown estate that tenants can go to. Very often, it is a local land agent or a locally based land agent, who is available for one or two days a week. Does this bill present an opportunity to change that approach and would you welcome such a change?
We have asked a number of times—would Bell’s Brae have its own factor? The response was always that the Crown Estate relied on Savills to give it more experience and more staff. I think that we would be quite keen to have an in-house factor.
We have a junior factor who comes round but he only works two days a week. There is a problem with tenants not being able to converse well. We are only just picking up on emails, but if you want something done, you have to do the paperwork and get it logged. The general tenant will meet up with the guy who comes round and they will agree on something, but then it will be forgotten about. Both sides need to set up a situation where they are quite clear about what they want and whether it can be done.
Is it a generally held view that an in-house factor would be a step forward?
I think that it is normally the case. At the Fochabers estate, we have a specific factor from Savills, and it is the same for the Glenlivet estate. That works, but I think that the fact that we have this tenants working group up and running is like having a halfway house. We have a meeting with the Crown Estate twice a year and we are starting to involve the factors as well.
We are intermediaries between them, so there is more accountability creeping in all the time. Accountability is expanding, which has to be good. We have meetings with our own tenants on each estate maybe twice yearly—just as and when necessary. Up to now, those meetings have been pretty well attended—probably 90 per cent of tenants have attended. Their feedback is that this is good and they have never seen this before. So far, it is all positive.
Do the panel members have any brief comments on investment and whether there is a disparity in investment between different tenanted farms and different areas of the Crown estate? Jim Inness said that it is not all about revenue and I understand his point, but is there any concern that there are showcase areas and then other areas that might lose out a bit?
We could not possibly comment on that.
I farm on the Crown estate in Glenlivet but I also farm down in Dufftown, which is a different type of ownership altogether. It is chalk and cheese with the different landlords. The Crown Estate in the past was the bee’s knees with regard to investment in farms. Obviously, with the way that costs have crept up for buildings, for example, there is not the same money going about but the Crown Estate is still focused on keeping the farms alive and kicking and replacing buildings as and when needed. It is still an on-going situation. It works out.
However, it is not all about money. The farm has to be viable for the future and the buildings need to be up to scratch. The financial plan is pretty good reading. The plan is to grow the portfolio by £2 million in 2018-19. The net revenue would be about £1 million. That is all good but, although the rural estate is worth £96-odd million in capital, the revenue from it is not very clever. That is farming, but it is a key area of the Crown Estate portfolio and it needs to be looked after.
We have an issue, particularly in Applegirth, which has been taken over. My family has been there since before the Crown Estate took over. No proper maintenance is ever done. Investment is now left to the tenants, by and large. The Crown Estate does not invest in dairies, for example. However, we are considering maintenance.
An audit must be done. Last night, I got an email from Andy Wells who said that one would be done. If the Crown Estate does not know its liabilities, it cannot do a budget. There are so many underlying issues that need to be addressed that have happened over the years. It is not the current lot’s fault—although it is their problem now—but has come from what happened before. Therefore, an audit must be done.
As tenants, we have the opportunity for an amnesty, whereas we are putting forward our tenant investments. Alongside that, I believe—I think that we all do—that the landlord should understand what his problems are, because he needs to lay aside money to fix the lead pipes and the fallen-down sheds.
So, to answer Claudia Beamish’s question, there is an inconsistency of approach to investment across the four estates.
I agree. In general, the tenants are proud to be Crown Estate tenants. That is refreshing in agricultural tenancies. There probably is a disparity between what happens now and what has happened previously. Brian Shaw mentioned the Applegirth estate in Dumfries and Galloway.
Part of the issue is transparency. There has not been much transparency until now, and it is good to see that theme in the bill. The tenants do not have a lot of input into decisions or understanding of how they are made, so a bit more information might help them to feel confident about investment in future.
I was going to come in later but, because Claudia Beamish touched on the question, I will ask it now. I am really interested in an audit. I assume that the Crown Estate has not done one. Any large organisation—a local authority, for example—would know the condition of its buildings and other assets. Are we saying that the Crown Estate does not?
Absolutely. Only when a tenant comes and says that they have a problem because the roof is falling in is it put into the budget. There are many underlying problems about which tenants are honestly frightened to go to the Crown Estate. There are some houses that need a lot of work. However, an audit is not difficult.
A crazy thing that the Crown Estate has done recently is a drive-by audit. I do not understand it. It is perhaps something technical. The factor phoned me up and told me, “I am driving past your farm very slowly. If you wonder what I am doing, I am doing a drive-by audit.” I said, “You’re a kerb crawler.” I do not know how he can value my farm or whatever part of it they are interested in. The snow was on the ground as well.
Can I follow that up? One of the questions that I was going to ask was about the benefits from the Crown Estate in terms of investment. Is there cross-investment to target areas of greatest need? If the Crown Estate does not know the condition of its properties, I assume that that is a serious issue.
I think that Brian Shaw down in Applegirth has been disadvantaged for long enough. Up in our neck of the woods, in Fochabers and Glenlivet—we could say that Glenlivet is the showpiece—we have been looked after quite well. The agents come round and look at things, and letters have been sent to me over the past six months when there have been issues, such as with the budget, repairs and so on. I reckon that the Crown Estate has sharpened up its act already.
I would not be too worried just yet, but Brian Shaw is quite right that we need to see where you guys are at with regard to the finances of the rural estate and how much needs to be spent in order to correct things. In all fairness, Applegirth probably needs more money spent on it than Fochabers or Glenlivet. I had experience of the other landlord and it is like chalk and cheese, but we need to keep the momentum going.
The Crown Estate should be an example of best practice as regards landlords, input and all the rest of it. If you put the money in, you will get delivery. If the farm is healthy—the portfolio of the buildings and all the rest of it—the whole community is healthy. It all filters back to the environment round about. If you look after the farmers, the whole thing falls into place and is kept intact.
I am on Whitehill estate, which was bought as an investment—the Crown Estate has had a lot of money from it. We had opencast coal mining, but Scottish Coal went bust when it was being put back, so the interim committee has had to pick up the pieces in re-establishing some of my farm. However, there is a quarry elsewhere on the estate and the Crown Estate has been able to sell land for housing behind Rosewell, not far from here.
There are only three or four of us farmers left on the estate, and we are out of the way of the rest of them. We are being managed from Dumfries now, so our situation is a wee bit like Brian Shaw’s in that agents are not coming up to Whitehill as much to see what needs to be done and what have you.
Our working group has regular meetings with the managing agents, Andy Wells and company. That has got to be a good thing, because we can tease out the negative aspects within the portfolio of the rural estate and try to get some more action on that.
Among its assets, Crown Estate Scotland is responsible for managing 37,000 hectares of rural land, which includes agricultural tenancies, residential properties and so on. In your opinion, what are the wider benefits for rural Scotland of Crown Estate Scotland continuing to hold on to and manage those assets effectively?
As I said before, for a rural estate it is self-explanatory. If you manage the assets, it pays dividends right down the line in social infrastructures, environmental balance and the whole thing.
What about employment?
It pays dividends in employment as well; the whole thing is related to a degree. Post-Brexit it could be negative. It is all relevant. That is a tricky question for the future, given that Brexit is a hidden area—we do not know what will happen with it.
I do not think that anybody knows.
No.
There are huge benefits to retaining the Crown estate as it is. These guys have been really clear from day 1 that they are proud to be tenants and think that the estate is a showcase. It could be a showcase for Scotland if it is done right and the positives are built on.
As for the agricultural tenants, the estate has a huge number of the secure tenancies that are left in Scotland, and those tenancies provide opportunities and long-term security. I also point out that, with regard to wider food security for Scotland, these guys are a massive part of the economics of these rural areas, and in anything that goes forward, the emphasis must be on giving them stability, particularly with the future of subsidy support, Brexit and so on.
In summary, then, the estate seems to have been functioning quite well in general, and I have seen no hugely compelling case for splitting it up.
11:00
It was said that you have meetings twice a year, but should you not be having a meeting every month or four times a year to fix the problems that Mr Shaw mentioned earlier?
We could, but I should point out that, at one point, there were no meetings at all—
I know that.
Then there was one per annum, and now there are two.
Push for more.
You could push for more—
No—you push for more.
Aye.
Brian, you seem to be in agreement.
That is right. Certain things are coming up. In his email, Andy Wells said that, after our suggestion, the Crown Estate was now going to do this audit—or so we believe—and that it would get in touch with us once it had been organised. That is not the way to go about this. We need to help the Crown Estate organise it to ensure that the job is done correctly and that this is not some top-down thing. We are now part of this infrastructure; in fact, we are buried in the churchyard, so we want to be part of the decision making.
I agree with Brian Shaw. The Smith commission recommended the devolution of more assets down the line; we have made it quite clear that we want the estates to be managed from a national perspective, but now that we are involved in this process, we seem to be this halfway house between the board and the managing agents. The Government seems to have bought into this; it is delivering, to a degree, what the Smith commission suggested, and I think that that should be built on—and indeed expanded—as time goes on.
As for Richard Lyle’s suggestion of four meetings per annum, it is the same thing as our having meetings with our fellow tenants: you do not have meetings just for the sake of having meetings. The easiest way of ensuring good attendance is to wait until priorities come to the fore and there is something to discuss, such as consultations; indeed, I see that a new one on pilot schemes came out yesterday. That is why you have a meeting.
Yes, but given you are already in the door, you should be pushing for more. That is my point.
I agree, but we should not have meetings for meetings’ sake. There needs to be something of substance to talk about.
The door has been opened to another subject, which Finlay Carson will ask about.
Jim Inness mentioned the possibility of the bill empowering communities to manage their rural assets more. What is the panel’s view on devolving more of that management to local authorities, other public authorities or community organisations? Could Brian Shaw down in Applegirth, say, form a community group to seek to manage assets, given the issues with factoring in the past?
To be quite honest, managing my own business is enough of a job. At the level that we are talking about, it is fine; we can get some cohesion with the tenants. However, all that we want to do is help the thing to run smoothly. We do not want to take over, because it works pretty darn good as it is.
Can I come in again? You can shut me up if you want to. [Laughter.] We do not really want things to be devolved down to councils, because Moray Council, for example, has a big enough job running its own show. As you know, it is in deep trouble financially. I should perhaps not say that, but it has already been picked up on.
The estates that we represent form a big portfolio; you need expertise to manage them, and in my opinion, that expertise lies in Bell’s Brae. Those people have been doing the work for years, and I do not think that we should diverge from the original format in the slightest.
It is the same with community involvement. Do communities have the money or the expertise to dip their toe in the water? There might be certain avenues—bike trails or whatever—that they could go down, but we in the rural farming sector see it as a no-no.
What about the interaction with the wider community around estates? It is not just about the agricultural tenancies. At Tomintoul, there is the village, and other things are going on. How can there be better and wider engagement with local communities in the context of Crown Estate tenants and tenancies?
We have created some walks and trails. There was subsidy to help to put them in place. One of the benefits of the approach is that we can regulate where the community comes, rather than have people walking everywhere, willy-nilly. We have made interesting walks along a riverbank and the like. We have nothing to do with the fishings—they are all owned and let out by different people.
I will meet RSPB tomorrow, to do work to try to save the tree sparrow or the house sparrow. People want to talk to us, and we respond.
Over the past 10-plus years, the Crown Estate has been instrumental in putting in bike trails and walks, especially in Glenlivet—it is way ahead of the game on all that; other estates do not do it. There is community involvement in that. We had a meeting with the community association; I think it was around December last year—no, it was further back, because it was in Richard Lochhead’s time. The farmers had their say, and then the community association came in, and everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet. It was all on a par.
I declare an interest: I am a member of NFU Scotland, although I am not a tenant farmer.
NFU Scotland said in paragraph 9 of its submission:
“The group is not in favour of too much local community or local authority involvement and believes that the estate is best served by retention of the national management structure where possible.”
Is that the panel’s view? Do you think that the structure should remain as it is, with, of course, the enhancement of the stronger community links that you have talked about? Does that encapsulate your position?
We have said that we want the estate to stay together.
At Whitehills, the community has been given an old steading to develop and use. The Bell’s Brae team will have to get better at publicising what the Crown Estate does with communities. A lot of things are not seen. We have trails in some of the woods, and they need to be better publicised.
Are people ruling out the opportunity for a group of tenants to come together to form a community group, which could provide factoring services to tenants in Applegirth, for example?
That is the next step, I guess. We have a group in Applegirth, which meets and deals with things.
The farmers are farmers, and they do not want to get too spread out; they want to concentrate on what they are doing, but if there is some way in which we could help, let us hear about it.
I want to ask about the farm sales framework and how decisions are made about the sale and reletting of farms on the estates. The bill requires the Crown Estate to “maintain and enhance value” of the estate and the return from it. My understanding is that, at the moment, unless there is a clear justification for an alternative, a unit will always be relet for agricultural use—I understand that the same goes for sales.
Does the panel have any thoughts on whether the new requirements in the bill will have an impact on the farm sales framework, as it stands?
Why not ask Tom Cattanach to comment on that? He is being very quiet here. He might give you an opinion.
My opinion is that it should be left the way it is just now. There will be circumstances in which they want to sell a farm, and I think it works well the way it is just now. If you block that, you will shut that off, and it will not be able to happen once the bill has gone through. I would prefer that we were left with the status quo.
What about reletting and sales for agriculture?
That can happen as long as the money is reinvested in something else. A farm should not be sold only for the money to be frittered away; perhaps it could be used to provide a higher income for the Crown Estate.
What about the reletting of farms that become available? Should there be a presumption in favour of reletting units to existing Crown Estate farmers, whether or not units are broken up? That could help to strengthen the tenancies that are already there. I accept the point about new entrants, but should that approach be taken as opposed to letting units to people who might be farming already, outwith the Crown Estate? Does anybody have views on that?
You would probably expect me to say yes, but we have discussed that and people are quite keen that it does not always happen like that. The Crown Estate recently let a farm on one of the northern estates, and the tenants there are keen that what they call empire building does not happen. They see anything that becomes vacant as a potential opportunity for the younger guys to come in. I do not think that it is the sort of thing that we can have an inflexible policy on.
To go back to Kate Forbes’s question about the framework in the bill, it has become apparent during discussions that we are talking about a massive estate and a hugely diverse portfolio with stuff coming in and stuff going out, and the ability to maintain that is crucial to its long-term survival.
Can I push you on the question? It would be good to get clarity. Given what you have said, is there a preference for a unit that becomes available to be let to the next generation—for example, to new entrants who are already involved in the Crown Estate? They could be the sons or daughters of existing farmers who want to branch out themselves. Do you still want it to be done on a wider basis?
There are probably pros and cons to that approach. Given that the majority of the tenancies are 1991 act secure tenancies, those individuals will likely inherit or be able to have farms assigned to them anyway, so we have to question whether that is the right route.
That would happen eventually.
Yes.
In the past 10 years or so, the Forestry Commission has created starter farms. A lot of starter farms have 10-year leases, and at some point they come to an end. The Crown Estate could be a role model in creating opportunities for guys moving up the ladder. By the same token, as has been suggested, we have farmers’ sons branching out with their own structure and taking on farms, and that has to be a good thing. There needs to be a system for people to climb rungs on the ladder, because guys who go through the 10-year leases need that. If no farms are available, they will be dead and buried because they cannot get anywhere.
As regards rental revenue, Kate Forbes mentioned growing the revenue in the estate, but due account also has to be taken of the sustainability of farms. Empire building is a non-starter for me. On the revenue side and the rents that are achieved, it is not all about maximum revenue. As we have seen in the past, people all too often go for big bucks, and three years down the line the tenant pleads poverty and says, “This isn’t working. I need a rent review and a rent reduction to make it viable.”
As regards new farms coming on to the scene for let, there has to be a rigorous forward plan of, say, five years, and there has to be financial accountability so that the rent that is offered can be sustained and we do not have the situation of people pleading poverty in three years’ time. It has to be sustainable. However, that does not necessarily grow the estate as regards revenue. You cannot have it both ways.
Okay. Thank you for that.
11:15
We took evidence from the Government’s bill team a couple of weeks ago on the proportion of net revenue that can be retained by asset managers and reinvested back into estates. The figure of 9 per cent was mentioned, which seems to be an historic figure that is based on Treasury rules. I probably know the answer to this already, but is 9 per cent enough? How does a variation of that figure affect the motivation of managers?
I guess that, if the audit is done, we will know. The part of the world that I come from will need more than that initially and for a few years to come. Three or four farms have already been sold off, and that seems to be where revenue is coming from to afford the keeping up of the estate. If that is to be, it is to be. I do not have a clue about the 9 per cent, but it needs to be enough to do what is needed to keep it tenable.
There is a cross-subsidising element to the management of the portfolio, as some parts of the estate might not be doing as well as others. If the capital fund is grown and if the 9 per cent is too high, there would not be enough money left to divert or to cross-subsidise to maintain the estate portfolio.
To come back on one specific point, farm sales are needed at the moment to provide revenue to keep everything mobile and moving forward. However, we do not agree with selling farms from the central part of our rural estate, because it might start off with one farm being sold, but then two are sold, and that leads to fragmentation creeping in, which is not a good idea. Farm sales have to be analysed in full; perhaps one corner could be sold off so that the estate is not fragmented. By the same token, there should be consultation with groups such as ours before any sales or purchases are made. Perhaps I am being a bit self-important with regard to the group, but it is all to do with accountability and making the right decisions for the benefit of the whole portfolio.
To go back to something that Brian Shaw mentioned a second ago, I think that you would all accept that what you as tenant farmers might deem to be necessary by way of repair and restoration work, the Crown Estate might hold a different view on. How do you envisage compromise and mediation working in practice to come to an agreed position? Inevitably, there will be differences of opinion.
Let us start by getting all the houses up to a reasonable standard. At the minute, agricultural laws do not require farmhouses to be up to the lettable standard. It is heading in that direction, but some houses out there are really not very good.
As far as maintenance and bringing them up to standard is concerned, that will be quite obvious. What has been stopping or retarding that is the fact that there has not been enough money in the budget. This budget is derisory and we do not know where it comes from; I think that it is just the same as last year. Some tenants say, “Oh yes, we’ll do that,” but the onus has to come back to us to tell the bosses what the situation is so that they can afford to put right the estate in a timely manner.
That is why a repair and investment audit is totally relevant at this juncture, so that we can see where we are financially and for the future.
To build on what Jim Inness said, the Crown Estate calls it an audit, but I call it a record of condition. This is a chance to start afresh, and carrying out records of condition of all the holdings would be really useful. It could be followed by an agreed schedule of works, which would tie in with the estate budgets.
With regard to wider industry codes, a lot of work is being done by the tenant farming commissioner, which is about behaviour, and I think that that underpins discussions already. I do not see that as necessarily being a source of conflict—it can be just a discussion—but the tenants need information that they do not have currently to be able to be involved in the process.
To go back to the points about the audit and how it might function, will it look at the condition of existing assets or at their economic potential? If there is a farmhouse or an abandoned building on a farm that could be used for bed and breakfast but a substantial investment would be needed to achieve that, would an audit pick that up, or would it merely look at whether the building is falling down and can be retained as it is, abandoned?
Yes, it certainly would pick that up. The picture would be painted and then a decision about what would have to happen would be taken. Sometimes, a building is made redundant and then a bit is maybe knocked off the rent. I have had a building renewed. The problem is that there are leases. That is the problem that the Crown Estate and all landlords and tenants have—there is a lease that has to be adhered to. If a building that someone is paying rent for is falling down, it should be replaced. Whether it is replaced in its traditional form is a moot point.
In the cases that I have been involved in, buildings have become worn out. I have pointed out to the landlord that I am paying rent on them but they are no good to me, and they have put up something substantial. They have done good. However, quite a few tenants are not able to push that enough. If there were a review, as Gemma Cooper says, we would all start from a level base and then people who are, sadly, behind at the moment would get up to speed.
Houses might be not derelict but not being used. You make the point that diversification is an avenue for the tenant and it can be co-funded by the Crown as landlord. That is food for thought going forward but, at the moment, what happens if the house has never been used and is in a sad old state? What happens if it is in a prime location and a decent spot? The landlord will take the opportunity to sell that site or house and grow the revenue, or the capital budget. There are two ways of looking at it.
As regards bed and breakfasts and stuff like that, Glenlivet might be overdone already as regards holiday accommodation, but in other areas that could be a useful secondary income. Any of those avenues will be useful post-Brexit if subsidies are going to decline.
I refer to my farming interest, which is in the register of interests.
How should tenant farmers be represented and involved in the decision-making processes of the Crown Estate in this new environment? How would you like to be involved? Do you want the status quo? Do you want more consultation with you as tenant farmers? Do you want a voice in a management structure? What is the best way?
The forum that we have, with two tenants from each estate, is essential going forward, because we can speak with tenants and take forward what they say either to the interim board or direct to Government, if needed. If everybody is in a circle round the table at Bell’s Brae and speaking, we have got to come to good decisions.
The fact that we are here today giving evidence shows how far we have come. On the question of how we would like things to go forward, we are the farming community that ticks the Smith commission box, and we would like to see our group’s involvement in decision making expand.
The convener touched on this, and it is an interesting scenario. If there was a dispute between a tenant farmer and the Crown Estate as landlord, would that kind of system nip it in the bud? Would it help mediate when there are problems?
Absolutely.
In light of the above, what are your views on the bill? For example, are additional safeguards or commitments needed in some areas? Many of the witnesses said that you quite like the status quo. You have all said that it is a privilege to be tenants of the Crown Estate, so you are already examples of good practice, but how do you see possible improvements being made?
You mention safeguards in the bill. We are moving in that direction. The bill provides a big improvement for us. We see nothing lacking in the bill that we are looking for. We believe that we are heading in the right direction. We are not propelling the ship; we hope to steer it.
We will finish on that optimistic note. I thank the witnesses for their time. It has been a useful and constructive meeting.
11:25 Meeting suspended.Previous
Subordinate Legislation