House of Commons - Government horizon scanning - Science and Technology Committee

Government horizon scanning - Science and Technology Committee Contents

3 A new way forward?

The Government's new horizon scanning programme

29. Following the publication of the Day review in January 2013, the Government announced in July that it had initiated a new horizon scanning programme.[89] The programme, it stated, was to be led by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, with ministerial oversight from the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Francis Maude MP), the Minister for Government Policy (Oliver Letwin MP) and the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office (David Laws MP).[90] Under a new governance structure implemented as part of the programme, Sir Jeremy was to be advised by a group of senior civil servants known as the Cabinet Secretary's Advisory Group (CSAG), which was itself to be supported by a second group of civil servants known as the Horizon Scanning Oversight Group (GOSH), chaired by Jon Day, Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee and author of the Day review.[91]

30. As part of the new horizon scanning programme, the Government stated that it had "commissioned several new strands of work to inform major areas of policy". It was announced that these strands were:

· emerging technologies;

· emerging economies;

· changing supply and demand of resources;

· changing social attitudes of young people; and

· the future of demographic change in the UK.[92]

For each of these five strands, the Government stated that departments would work together in "communities of interest" to coordinate the production of horizon scanning and determine broad policy implications, which would then be reviewed, "two or three times a year", by CSAG and GOSH.[93] Departmental membership of CSAG, GOSH and the five communities of interest is detailed in Table 1.Table 1: Membership of The Cabinet Secretary's Advisory Group (CSAG), Horizon Scanning Oversight Group (GOSH) and communities of interest, as of December 2013[94]

Department[95] CSAG GOSH Communities of interest

Emerging technologies Social attitudes of young people Supply & demand of resources Emerging economies Demographic change

Business, Innovation & Skills X X X X X X X

GO-Science X X X X

Cabinet Office X X X X X

Communities & Local Government X X X X X x

Culture, Media and Sport X

Education X X X

Energy and Climate Change X X X

Environment, Food & Rural Affairs X X

Foreign & Commonwealth Office X X X X X X

Health X X X X X X

Her Majesty's Treasury X X X X X

Home Office X X X X

International Development X X X X X X

Ministry of Defence X X X X X X

Ministry of Justice X X

Transport X X X

Work & Pensions X X X X X X

Northern Ireland Executive X X X

Welsh Government X x X X

Scottish Government X X X

31. Witnesses were broadly in favour of the new programme. The Royal Society supported the Government's "increasing interest in horizon scanning" and Intelligent Transport Systems UK stated that the changes recommended by the Day review were "necessary and we welcome them".[96] Cranfield University's Centre for Environmental Risks and Futures (CERF) agreed that the recommendations were "generally well founded" and Fiona Lickorish, head of CERF, highlighted the new organisational structure as being particularly useful.[97] Witnesses recognised the historic silos that existed between departments and were particularly supportive of the decision to locate the new programme in the Cabinet Office. The Royal Academy of Engineering stated that the Cabinet Office was the "clear choice" of locus for horizon scanning and considered that this location would "help support cross-departmental activity".[98] Ms Lickorish agreed that the new programme should be located in the Cabinet Office and Jessica Bland, Nesta, was also "very pro the idea of a central function".[99] The Government told us that the Day review had also been "well received in government" and that there had been "buy-in from departments at all levels to engage with the new programme".[100] It highlighted that all government departments were involved in "at least one" community of interest and considered this to be indicative of the "progress" achieved by the new programme.[101] However, it stated that it was "too early to make a comprehensive assessment" as to whether the new programme had "effectively addressed the gaps identified in the [Day] review".[102] Mr Day was content that the Government had implemented his recommendations as he had intended but stated that it was "still too early to say whether they have been as successful as I had hoped".[103]

Areas for improvement

THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR SCIENCE (GO-SCIENCE)

32. The quality of the work of the Government Office for Science (GO-Science)—particularly that of the Foresight programme—was strongly endorsed by witnesses. Intelligent Transport Systems UK (ITS UK) described Foresight's 2006 report on intelligent infrastructure as "ambitious", "detailed" and "respectfully received by the transport community" and Natalie Day, Oxford Martin School, stated that "many" Foresight reports had proved to be "instrumental".[104] The Government itself also highlighted the quality of Foresight's work. Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary, stated that Foresight reports were typically of "impeccable quality", describing them as "brilliant pieces of work, really original and path-breaking", while the Minister compared the Foresight unit to a Rolls Royce, which "purrs along and then every couple of years you get one of these great things".[105] However, Foresight's work has not always been used effectively by policy-makers. ITS UK stated, for example, that Foresight's intelligent infrastructure report had had "little lasting impact on subsequent policy" and Sir Jeremy said that while GO-Science had "over many years" conducted "some really excellent work", this had "not always translated into actual policy changes".[106]

33. Given the high standard of the work conducted by the Foresight programme—and its role, in recent years, as the only cross-cutting horizon scanning function in Government (see paragraph 20)—several witnesses were puzzled that GO-Science did not play a more substantial role in the new horizon scanning programme. Dr Martyn Thomas, Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng), stated that "the role of GO-Science, the work of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser [GCSA], and in particular the network of departmental CSAs [Chief Scientific Advisers]" had not been "stressed anything like enough" in the Day review.[107] Jonathan Cowie, former head of policy at the Institute of Biology, agreed that GO-Science should be "more involved" in government horizon scanning.[108] The review did not set out any specific role for departmental CSAs and although several are represented on the Horizon Scanning Oversight Group (GOSH), none are included in any of the five communities of interest.[109] GO-Science itself is represented in three of the five communities of interest but is not represented in the groups relating to "changing supply and demand of resources" or "emerging economies".[110]

34. Sir Mark Walport, the current GCSA and the head of GO-Science, described GO-Science's role in the new horizon scanning programme as follows:

111

Sir Jeremy, Cabinet Secretary, said that GO-Science was "playing a very good role" in the new programme; however, the Minister acknowledged that links between the GO-Science and the Cabinet Office could be improved, stating that an "issue" which he needed to "take up and resolve" was "the connection [...] between the Foresight programme and the horizon scanning programme".[112] The Minister explained:

113

GO-Science's location in Government

35. There is evidence to suggest that the apparent disconnect between the Government's two cross-departmental horizon scanning programmes and Foresight's limited policy impact can both be linked to GO-Science's non-central location in government. Fiona Lickorish, Centre for Environmental Risks and Futures (CERF), stated that Foresight's work had been "perhaps sidelined" because of its location in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and that uptake of its outputs had "not been as good" as it could have been if the unit had been "more centrally located in government".[114] Ms Lickorish added:

115

Mr Day also appeared to recognise the importance of a central location and recommended in his review that "strategic coordination of horizon scanning activity" be provided by the Cabinet Office in order to "remove departmental compartmentalisation and generate an agreed view on cross cutting issues".[116] He also stressed the need for horizon scanning to have a "senior champion" with cross-departmental influence.[117] The efficacy of these measures in "embedding horizon scanning in the culture of the Civil Service" appeared to be borne out by Sir Mark, who stated that Mr Day's work had "been very helpful for the Government Office for Science and the Horizon Scanning Centre because it has enabled our work to be embedded much more effectively across government".[118]

36. We regard the work of the Foresight programme to be excellent and consider its relative lack of impact on policy to be a reflection of GO-Science's non-central location in Government rather than the quality of the Foresight programme's outputs.

37. Our predecessor committees have suggested on several occasions that GO-Science and the GCSA's role, to ensure that "the best scientific advice" is utilised at "all levels of government", would be more easily fulfilled if both were to be moved to a more central location in government.[119] In its October 2006 report on Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making, the Committee stated that the Cabinet Office "would in many respects be a natural location for the Government Chief Scientific Adviser [GCSA], reflecting his role as Chief Scientific Adviser [CSA] to the Cabinet and Prime Minister, his cross-departmental remit and his independence".[120] The Committee concluded that "in view of the cross-cutting nature of science and the cross-departmental responsibilities" of the GCSA, "it would make sense for the post to be based in a department with a similarly cross-cutting remit": that is, the Cabinet Office.[121] In March 2009, the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills (IUSS) Committee made the same recommendation in its report Engineering: turning ideas into reality.[122] The Committee proposed that both the office of the GCSA and GO-Science as a whole should be "placed in the Cabinet Office", explaining that:

These proposals would be easy for the Government to implement, would put down a marker of the Government's commitment to evidence-based policy, and would lay the structural and cultural foundations for a more evidence-focused civil service.[123]

This recommendation was made for a third time in July 2009 in the IUSS's report Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy. This stated that:

124

The previous Government repeatedly rejected these recommendations. In its response to the Committee's 2006 report, the Government stated that the location of the GCSA post was "a matter for the Prime Minister", but promised to keep this "under review".[125] Three years later, in its response to the Committee's Engineering report, the Government accepted that there remained "room for improvement" in ensuring that appropriate scientific and engineering advice was available across government, but stated that is was "fully confident in the ability of the GCSA to take this forward within the newly formed Department for Business, Innovation and Skills".[126] The Government reiterated that this decision would be "kept under review".[127] Finally, in its response to Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy, the Government stated that the Prime Minister considered GO-Science to be "best located within BIS" and did "not recognise [the] Committee's assessment of his engagement with the GCSA as 'woefully inadequate'".[128]

38. Our predecessor Committees hoped that a more central location for GO-Science would improve the level of contact between the Prime Minister and his Chief Scientific Adviser. In November 2010 the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee, that he would "certainly" spend more time with his scientific advisers in the future.[129] We have therefore kept close note of this relationship over the last four years. In March 2013, at the end of his tenure as GCSA, we asked Sir John Beddington how often he had met the Prime Minister during his time in post. Sir John responded that he had written to the Prime Minister "over 40 times" during this Parliament and had "usually" received a reply, but acknowledged that he had "not seen him and banged the table".[130] In our previous session with Sir John, in October 2012, he had stated that he had spent time with the Prime Minister on "two occasions" in the previous 12 months.[131] When we asked Sir Mark the same question in April 2013 he acknowledged that he had not yet met the Prime Minister in his capacity as GCSA.[132] When we asked again in December, Sir Mark admitted to only a single "one-to-one meeting", although he added that he had seen the Prime Minister "at other events" and considered himself to have had "good contact" with him.[133]

39. We consider the Government's position regarding the location of GO-Science to be illogical, particularly in light of its recent decision to place horizon scanning—quite rightly in our view—at the heart of government decision-making, in the Cabinet Office. Horizon scanning is a cross-cutting activity with widespread and potentially significant policy implications, which the Government has committed to embedding across the Civil Service. The same can be said for much of the work of GO-Science. We are therefore at a loss to understand why a recommendation accepted as good practice for one—namely strategic coordination of horizon scanning from the Cabinet Office—has repeatedly been rejected for the other. We again recommend that GO-Science be relocated from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to the Cabinet Office, where it can more easily fulfil its remit of ensuring that the best scientific evidence is utilised across government.

40. From its new location, we hope that GO-Science would naturally become more fully integrated into the horizon scanning programme. However, we also think that this relationship would benefit from being formally strengthened. We recommend that the Government Chief Scientific Adviser sit permanently on both the Cabinet Secretary's Advisory Group (CSAG) and the Horizon Scanning Oversight Group (GOSH) and that GO-Science be represented in all communities of interest. We also encourage Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers (DCSAs) to engage more closely with the programme and suggest that DCSAs or their deputies offer themselves as representatives for any community of interest in which their department has an interest.

TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNICATION

The argument for transparency

41. Witnesses considered good communication to be central to successful horizon scanning. Marcus Morrell, Arup, stated that communication was a "very important" element of any horizon scanning exercise and that it was "critical" for results to be communicated "in a clear way" so that users could "accessibly digest the material and findings".[134] Doug McKay, Shell, agreed and added that it was necessary to "invest a substantial amount of time in the communication of the results" if horizon scanning were to achieve proper user engagement.[135] The Foresight Toolkit, a predecessor to the current Horizon Scanning Toolkit, recommended that "25 per cent of an initial budget for a foresight programme should be put aside for communicating findings after publication".[136] Witnesses also recommended that the results of government horizon scanning should be shared with the public, although with some caveats. Intelligent Transport Systems UK (ITS UK) stated that the "outputs from state-funded horizon scanning work" should be "made available to the public to read within a sensible time frame" and Professor Steve Rayner, University of Oxford, considered "openness and transparency" to be "fundamental precondition[s] for maintaining public trust and confidence".[137] However, both of these witnesses also acknowledged the risks of absolute transparency. Professor Rayner stated that, "in some circumstances", the benefits of "un-self-censored" horizon scanning might outweigh the benefits of full transparency.[138] ITS UK also recognised that exceptions might need to be made where publication carried "evident risks, in areas such as defence or security".[139]

42. The extent to which the outputs of government horizon scanning are currently published appears to vary. All major Foresight reports are published on the GO-Science website and are widely publicised across stakeholder groups.[140]However, witnesses perceived reluctance from some departments to publish the outputs of their horizon scanning work. The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) stated that "many departments" were "less than enthusiastic about publicising" such outputs because "what can be seen at the horizon is too easily ridiculed by cynics or the media".[141] ITS UK also highlighted the "risk of negative publicity", but stated that this was "not a valid reason for not publishing" horizon scanning outputs.[142] It agreed that there was currently a "lack of openness" in government horizon scanning.[143]

43. We accept that it may sometimes be necessary for the findings of government horizon scanning to remain confidential, particularly when they relate to sensitive issues such as security and defence. However, such cases should be the exception, not the rule. With these exceptions, we propose that the outputs of all government horizon scanning be made transparent. This recommendation applies both to centrally-managed horizon scanning and that conducted at the departmental level, which we consider to be somewhat poorly communicated at present.

Communication and the new horizon scanning programme

44. When asked whether the new horizon scanning programme's outputs would be published, Mr Day stated that the "presumption" would be "in favour of publication" unless there was "a reason not to".[144] The Minister clarified this position by distinguishing between the two 'sides' of a horizon scanning exercise. He explained:

On the first of those two sides—the collection of evidence, projections and the translation of those into possible scenarios—my view is that we should be maximally transparent. [...] We should go beyond mere transparency into a positive programme of communication, making sure this is widely disseminated and people can comment, and that we make use of the comments and go back to them in an interactive process.[145]

[...]

146

The Minister stated that, as reports emerged from the programme, they would be published "right away" so that the aforementioned "interactive process" between the Government and the wider community could take place.[147] In December 2013, Mr Day told us that one of the programme's exercises had "been through the full process" and would be published "as soon as possible next year".[148] However, the Government has not yet, to our knowledge, published any outputs or any additional information about the programme since it was first announced in July 2013. The programme also does not appear to have a dedicated webpage on either Gov.UK or the current GO-Science website.

45. We were encouraged by the Minister's plans to "go beyond mere transparency into a positive programme of communication" as part of the new horizon scanning programme. However, several months in, we have not yet seen any evidence of this occurring. We have been disappointed by the lack of information shared about this programme—particularly in relation to its individual work strands—and do not feel that this lays a strong groundwork for the interactive approach which the Minister claims the programme will soon be taking. We recommend that the Government enhance the visibility and transparency of the new horizon scanning programme by promptly setting up a dedicated gov.uk webpage. The new webpage should:

a) detail the background and objectives of the programme;

b) clearly set out the landscape for government horizon scanning, detailing the roles and responsibilities of all major centres of activity;

c) set-out the terms of reference and current membership of the Cabinet Secretary's Advisory Group (CSAG) and the Horizon Scanning Oversight Group (GOSH);

d) provide access to the minutes of meetings of both CSAG and GOSH;

e) detail the objectives, scope and planned activities for each work strand, together with membership of the relevant community of interest;

f) provide links to all of the programme's outputs and supporting documentation, including a facility for comment and interactive engagement, and

g) provide information and contact details for organisations and individuals who wish to become involved with the programme.

This webpage should be launched by July 2014 at the latest.

46. We also encourage all departments to increase the transparency of their own horizon scanning by providing links to key departmental outputs through this central page and by making supporting information available via a public hub such as data.gov.uk. Transparency should be a key feature of the regular reviews of departmental horizon scanning recommended in paragraph 23.

47. We consider better communication and improved transparency to be essential precursors to mending another shortcoming in the current programme: that is, the lack of opportunity for external engagement.

EXTERNAL ENGAGEMENT

48. In its 2006 report, Governing the Future, the Public Administration Select Committee pointed out that "the ability to think strategically depends, in part, on a willingness to listen to challenges and contrary views".[149] It stated that "involving a wide range of people" in such activities was therefore "important".[150] Witnesses to this inquiry strongly agreed that a wide range of external viewpoints should be incorporated during any horizon scanning exercise. The Royal Academy of Engineering stated that horizon scanning should be conducted in an environment that was "open to challenge" and stressed the need to include "the views of those outside of the civil service and government".[151] Fiona Lickorish, CERF, explained that this was because it was often "easier" for an external person to "probe" issues "a little bit further" and ask "difficult questions", allowing them to be "aired and talked about".[152] Doug McKay, Shell, agreed, pointing out that if horizon scanning was "all internal" it would result in people "saying the same thing" as they had said before".[153] The Day review acknowledged the need for government horizon scanning to undergo "robust challenge" in order "to ensure credibility and enable the development of implications for policy and strategy".[154] It recommended that policy-makers, industry and academia should engage with the new programme through membership of the communities of interest (see figure 1) and that the Cabinet Secretary's Advisory Group (CSAG) should include a "non-executive director", appointed by the Cabinet Secretary, "to provide external views and challenge".[155]

49. The Government also acknowledged "the power of engaging with external stakeholders and experts" and agreed that "external challenge" was central to the testing of horizon scanning's assumptions and implications.[156] However, the Government has not, to date, implemented the Day review's recommendations to involve external stakeholders in the communities of interest and appoint a non-executive director to CSAG. Mr Day stated that this was because the first year of the programme had been "focused on doing this internally within Government" but that "increasingly, we are now moving out and engaging with the private sector and academia".[157]

50. Government horizon scanning must be open to challenge if it is to be effective and this means that it must accommodate a range of external viewpoints. This was made clear in the Day review and we were therefore surprised and disappointed to discover that none of the bodies created in its aftermath currently include any external representation. While we acknowledge the need for government horizon scanning to be government-led, we see little value in a horizon scanning exercise which does not incorporate a broader perspective.

Engaging with scientific experts

51. Cutting-edge science and technology are frequently the subject of horizon scanning projects: 'emerging technologies' has been singled-out as one of the new horizon scanning programme's five strands of work. However, as a "systematic examination of information", horizon scanning itself can also be considered a form of scientific activity.[158] Jessica Bland, Nesta, stated that scientific techniques such as modelling were an increasingly common tool in horizon scanning and a recent Nesta study has shown that other quantitative techniques such as bibliometrics (the statistical analysis of publications) and social network analysis are also becoming increasingly important.[159] In addition, Professor Ann Buchanan, Academy of Social Sciences, and Dr Martyn Thomas, Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng), stressed the contribution to be made by social scientists[160], arguing that this area of expertise was "absolutely essential" to many horizon scanning projects.[161] Fiona Lickorish, CERF, agreed that horizon scanning was a "social science activity" and added that if there were areas of horizon scanning in which scientific expertise was not of use, then "I haven't ever done them".[162]

52. An obvious mechanism for involving external scientific experts in the horizon scanning process would be through membership of CSAG and the topic-focused communities of interest, as recommended by the Day review. Dr Thomas, RAEng, stated that CSAG, in particular, should "link more closely with all the national academies" to ensure that relevant experts could contribute to its work.[163] The Royal Society agreed that the national academies could play "an important role in assisting the horizon scanning efforts of government", in part because of their access to "wide and deep" scientific networks, while Jonathan Cowie, former Head of Science Policy at the Institute of Biology, highlighted that smaller learned societies also had access to "a substantial body of considerable specialist expertise".[164] The Institution of Engineering and Technology suggested that since "the delivery of policy for many Departments [...] rests heavily on public and private industry" it would "seem sensible to expand the membership of both the CSAG and [GOSH] to reflect this" by including representatives from industry on the two steering groups.[165]

53. Sir Mark Walport, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, acknowledged the importance of science to futures thinking and stated that departmental CSAs had "clearly defined responsibilities" to ensure that there was "sufficient scientific input into horizon scanning across government".[166] He added that he "could not conceive" of a horizon scanning group "that did not have scientific input" and stated that "it would be surprising" if "science, engineering, technology and social science" were "not to have a very strong input into the Cabinet Secretary's Advisory Group".[167] Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary, said that he did not "rule out bringing in a couple of non-execs or some outsiders on to our group [CSAG], or Jon Day's challenge group [GOSH]", but stated that "the area where I really want to see the external input would be the communities of interest", "where the actual work on looking at best thinking and developing hypotheses gets done".[168]

54. At its best, horizon scanning is underpinned by scientific techniques and can be enhanced by the involvement of scientific experts, whatever the topic. We therefore recommend that representatives of each of the UK national academies—the Royal Society, the British Academy and the Royal Academy of Engineering—be included as observers on the Horizon Scanning Oversight Group (GOSH) and that membership of the communities of interest be immediately opened up to external organisations, including academic groups, learned societies and industry.

Engaging with Parliament

55. The new horizon scanning programme does not currently appear to facilitate any parliamentary input, despite the existence of significant horizon scanning activity and expertise across both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. For example, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) is a bicameral office that aims to "anticipate policy implications" of current science and technology issues in order to provide parliamentarians with "independent, balanced and accessible analysis" of these issues.[169] POST's work is overseen by a Board comprised of parliamentarians drawn from both Houses and several "leading non-parliamentarians from the science and technology community".[170] POST also maintains close relationships with a wide range of academic and other stakeholders and runs a programme of parliamentary events intended to "stimulate debate on a range of topics", making it a key potential point of contact between parliamentarians and the wider community.[171] POST's expertise in futures research was recognised in the Public Administration Select Committee's 2006 report, Governing the future, which recommended that it form the basis for a dedicated "futures forum" where parliamentarians could "work with external bodies to inform themselves and stimulate debate".[172] The Committee stated that such a forum could "build on the excellent work conducted by [POST] in providing information and a forum for debate in Parliament on scientific issues" and recommended that POST be "strengthened" to "enhance its work" in this field.[173]

56. Horizon scanning also forms part of the remit of parliamentary Select Committees. In the House of Commons, for example, the majority of Select Committees are appointed to "examine the expenditure, administration and policy" of their principle department—all matters inherently linked to a department's expectations and plans for the future.[174] Indeed, the Science and Technology Committee has frequently considered topics informed by, or made necessary as a result of, horizon scanning; for example our recent inquiries on antimicrobial resistance[175], the communication of climate science[176] and scientific advice and evidence in emergencies.[177]

57. We consider it vital that the horizon scanning conducted on behalf of Government informs and is informed by the horizon scanning conducted on behalf of Parliament. We consider the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) to be one possible conduit for this flow of information. We recommend that representatives from POST act as observers on all relevant communities of interest included within the new horizon scanning programme.

58. We also recommend that the Government establishes a method through which parliamentarians with an interest in horizon scanning—for example, Select Committee Chairs and Members—can engage with the new horizon scanning programme.

89 Cabinet Office/Government Office for Science, "Horizon scanning programme: a new approach for policy making", 12 July 2013 Back

90 Cabinet Office/Government Office for Science, "Horizon scanning programme: a new approach for policy making", 12 July 2013; GHS015 [HM Government] para 33 Back

91 Cabinet Office/Government Office for Science, "Horizon scanning programme: a new approach for policy making", 12 July 2013 Back

92 Cabinet Office/Government Office for Science, "Horizon scanning programme: a new approach for policy making", 12 July 2013 Back

93 GHS015 [Gov] para 32; Q208 [Mr Day] Back

94 GHS019 [HM Government supplementary] Back

95 Only Government Departments and devolved administrations listed. See GHS019 for a full list. Back

96 GHS009 [Royal Society] para 3; GHS002 [ITS UK} para 2.4 Back

97 GHS005 [CERF] para 5.1; Q105 [Ms Lickorish] Back

98 GHS006 [RAEng] para 3.1 Back

99 Q109 Back

100 GHS015 [HM Government] para 28 Back