13
Industry and Regulators Committee
Uncorrected oral evidence: The relationship between the Government and the defence industry
Tuesday 16 June 2026
11.05 am
Watch the meeting
Members present: Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (The Chair); Lord Barber of Ainsdale; Lord Best; Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill; Baroness Drake; Lord Fuller; Lord Teverson; Lord Udny-Lister; Baroness Valentine.
Evidence Session No. 2 Heard in Public Questions 12 - 20
Witnesses
Scott McClelland, Corporate Director, Tekever; Stewart Pearce, Head of Training, Regulations and Assurance, Tekever.
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
12
Scott McClelland and Stewart Pearce.
Q12 The Chair: Good morning and welcome to this second evidence session of the Industry and Regulators Committee. I am Dianne Hayter, and we are looking at the relationship between the Government and the defence and related industries. This is being broadcast on Parliament TV and there will be a full transcript taken. You will have a chance to look at that in case there are any corrections to it before it is then put on the website. I would like you to introduce yourselves first and then we will have some questions for you.
Scott McClelland: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everybody. I am the corporate director at Tekever UK.
Stewart Pearce: Good morning. I am also from Tekever. I am the head of regulations, training and assurance, and the director of West Wales Airport.
The Chair: Thank you for coming today, because we value the input that you are going to make to the work that we are doing. As you will know, and I am sure you have read it lots of times, last year’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR) called for the creation of a new partnership between the Government and the defence industry. We are interested to hear from you about the cultural and practical changes you think are needed from both sides of that relationship to provide a better partnership. Given your current relationship with the Government, what do you think needs to change on both sides of that? I do not know which of you would like to begin on that.
Scott McClelland: I will start on that. It is important to recognise that the SDR highlighted the need to shift from a transactional customer/supplier relationship into more of an iterative capability partnership. We very much agree with that approach. In the areas that we operate in—autonomy and uncrewed systems—the technology and the operational needs move very quickly. We really need to champion a philosophy that embraces autonomy, continuous evolution and adaptation. We have seen and lived and breathed that first hand through our support into Ukraine. That is built around an integrated customer relationship model. We work closely with the customer at the problem set level.
I guess that one of the key lessons is maybe around earlier engagement at the problem level and providing continuous feedback, as well as creating faster routes for proven capability to move into deployment. From our perspective, our relationship with UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is positive and growing. The UK has a number of strong ingredients to build on. Is there anything that you want to add?
Stewart Pearce: No, you have summed it up perfectly.
The Chair: So faster and earlier; is that just on the Government side or do you think that you also have something to contribute to enabling that to happen?
Scott McClelland: Yes, I think that industry needs to step up and play its role in this. That close, integrated customer relationship is built on trust, so industry needs to step up and do its job in that space as well.
Q13 Lord Udny-Lister: Thank you very much. Tekever has established and, indeed, expanded a manufacturing business in the UK. Given the international competition that is out there for investment in this area, what made you decide to make this investment in the UK? The really important part of my question that I want to ask is: what obstacles did you face in growing and expanding your business?
Scott McClelland: Thank you. On why we chose the UK, we have had a strong heritage of operating in the UK. The UK business was established in 2013 and we have been working with the UK Home Office doing wide-area maritime surveillance since 2019. We are building on that strong partnership. A couple of the reasons why we chose to expand in the UK is because the UK has a strong pool of talent for defence—a rich pedigree in defence and aerospace manufacturing that provides access to supply chain opportunities. Likewise, it has a number of excellent universities and academic institutions that are leading research in relevant areas for us. That, I guess, is tied with the strong relationship that we have had with the UK through that ongoing activity with the UK Home Office, and likewise the strong relationship built through our collective support for Ukraine through Taskforce Kindred.
The UK is not just an important market for Tekever; it is actually a place where we are building a huge amount of capability, becoming a real leading centre for us in operational delivery, engineering, manufacturing, training, flight operations and through-life support. That is really what the logic of our OVERMATCH strategic investment is about. That is us investing £400 million into the UK over the next five years, creating 1,000-plus jobs, built on those central pillars: West Wales Airport to enable us to do test and evaluation activity; Bristol, where we have just opened a new autonomy technology centre; and Swindon, where we will soon bring on a new large-scale manufacturing capability.
If I was to think about some of the obstacles, it is fair to say we had a bit of a challenge in finding the right infrastructure availability, particularly thinking about our selection of site in Swindon. However, we have been very well supported by the local politicians and the local government through Swindon Borough Council, who have made it really easy for us to land and develop.
Lord Udny-Lister: Thank you for the answer on the planning side. You need access to a lot of facilities, you have to test your stuff, you have to do things. What obstacles did you find in that area?
Scott McClelland: I will let Stewart come in in a moment. As you say, there are real challenges in respect to air space provision to support the operational testing of these platforms. We were in a very privileged position in that we were operating from West Wales Airport for a couple of years. That provides 2.5 million square miles of restricted airspace to enable us to do more novel testing. Again, we were in the very privileged position that we were able to acquire that airport, which provides us with continued access to that base.
The Chair: Sorry, did you say in west Wales?
Scott McClelland: Correct.
Stewart Pearce: Yes, West Wales Airport is over in Cardigan Bay, the very extreme west of Wales. It has access directly over to the sea, all the way up to Dublin and Anglesey. That is the airspace that Scott alluded to.
To answer the question on the other challenges that we have faced a little bit more, the UK is full of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) expertise, engineering talent and all those things that we do not really have problems finding, but it is about the operating area. On operational, it is difficult to find somewhere in the south-west of England with regulatory permissions to fly our aircraft. That is one of the major challenges that we have found, somewhat resolved with a couple of small locations, but we still have regulatory challenges enabling flying activity at those locations. As we have already mentioned, we were fortunate enough to be already operating at West Wales Airport in Cardigan Bay. Therefore, we have many fewer restrictions or obstacles than an SME entering the UAS market, with all the regulatory burdens, airspace challenges and the actual work horsepower required to get through those challenges.
Q14 Lord Teverson: Scott, I was tempted to ask you the question—because I see you used to work for HMRC—whether you had sympathy for Rachel Reeves and her pushback on defence investment budgets, but we maybe will not go into that, unless you would like to give us some clarity.
Lord Udny-Lister has in many ways asked a lot of the area that I was going to look at, but perhaps we could broaden it out. As a now well-established defence company, you presumably have a lot of contacts in that industry and that community. Perhaps we could broaden it out a bit and ask what you see more generically as the potential barriers or difficulties for that sector as a whole to work with the UK Government. I understand that you are a Portuguese-based company. I presume you have strong international experience. Perhaps you could tell us where on the league table the UK is in terms of being able to innovate in this sector.
Scott McClelland: Yes, you are absolutely right. We have operations across a number of different countries and we are exploring further. Our relationship with the UK has been really strong in this area. Of course, there are different nuances to respective international relationships. It is not a case of the UK wholesale changing to copy what others are doing. I think that it is building on the strengths and reducing the friction that it has. If we were to talk about maybe some of the more generic barriers to the industry, it would probably be incorrect of me to speculate what the barriers are for other companies without them addressing their actual barriers.
Lord Teverson: You must have a taste for it. Both of you have been in the industry now for some time, either working in the services or otherwise.
Stewart Pearce: From my side, it goes directly back to the access to segregated airspace and to established flying locations or, if you do not have access, the regulatory burden that is placed on you to enable flying or operating at those locations. The UK has a very strong regulatory framework and safety record that is above other countries. That links into a piece that was in the media a month or two back where SMEs were complaining about the regulatory burden and the fact that they had to go abroad to test and fly their drones. We are at an advantage, as we said, that we have West Wales Airport and access to airspace, but that is not a freedom that all the other companies in the UAS world have. That is a significant burden.
It is the regulatory changes at pace that we find an issue, because UAS technology is for ever evolving, and the regulatory framework and the regulatory bodies cannot keep up with the evolving changes that we in the UAS world have. Technology advances quickly and regulations cannot keep up at the same pace. Therefore, that stops people operating. To get a change through the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) takes a good three months. Even with good relationships, good will and good work with us and CAA, it still takes a long time. I can only imagine that a small start-up will find it even more of a challenge. That is before you then transition into the Military Aviation Authority world, which has a different framework that does not match the civil framework.
Lord Teverson: Is there space to coincide those, do you think? You have seen it from both sides.
Stewart Pearce: Yes. I have a really talented team that works in the Civil Aviation Authority space and the Military Aviation Authority space. They should match, mostly; a lot of things should match on the regulatory process, but they do not. One of my points is to say that there needs to be a more joined-up approach from the regulators, both civil and military, so that the process is easier.
Lord Teverson: Thank you. Perhaps I could just come back again with one more try in terms of some international comparison—or at least within NATO nations—of what works and what people have found has worked better than maybe it does here. Are there lessons that can be learned or is our military so different that we cannot compare?
Scott McClelland: I do not think that there is anything that we could necessarily share at this stage that would be lessons to take. I think that the UK user base is well informed, trying to learn the lessons that we have seen from Ukraine, and trying to implement that shift.
The Chair: While we are on regulation, I do not know whether you saw that we produced a report on economic growth and regulation last month or the month before, which touched a bit on regulation. Lord Best might like to pursue this, since we have got on to regulation now.
Q15 Lord Best: We are the Industry and Regulators Committee, so that is a big theme for us. You have already covered some of the ground of some of the problems that regulation brings. You said, I think, that there was more regulation here than in other countries, so there is a comparison with other countries. Do you think that this affects investment by the people who back you? Do they think that the UK’s heavy-duty regulation slows everything down and will make everything more expensive?
Stewart Pearce: No, I do not think that it precludes or prevents investment. As I previously mentioned, we have a regulatory framework that is successful and very safe. That is one thing we would not want to change. It is the proportionality of regulation that is an issue. You have to submit the same stuff for a high-risk operation versus a low-risk operation. I think that investors would take our advice. We have not had any problems with getting the things we need to go flying and operating, mostly because of West Wales Airport. Scott works on the investment side more than I do, but I do not think that it precludes or gets in the way of investment.
Lord Best: Is it the other way around? Does it, in fact, encourage investors to know that the sector is well regulated and safe?
Stewart Pearce: Yes.
Scott McClelland: Stewart will come in, but establishing operations within the UK has given us the framework to go and set up airspace to operate in other countries, which makes it easier for us to go and undertake demos and the likes. A lot of countries have looked at the regulations from the UK CAA and the European Union Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) and taken them as a high standard. If there is additional burden at the outset, it helps further down the line in terms of engagement across other areas.
Stewart Pearce: Yes, perhaps it might encourage people to invest because we are established and have most of the permissions that we need. We have a talented team to pursue those permissions. EASA, as Scott mentioned, is equally as burdensome across Europe, so there is parity across Europe, to be fair. We are not saying that the CAA or our regulations are tougher to get through than the European regulations. They are just slightly different.
Lord Best: You are a bit unique with this access to airspace in Wales. Do you think that is the big regulatory hurdle for others: they cannot get permission to fly?
Stewart Pearce: Absolutely. The biggest issue an SME would have is finding somewhere to test. We open the airport for external customers. We want to encourage SMEs to operate at West Wales Airport. We have several SMEs; one visited last week, another is at the final stages, and another one is booked in to use the airport and access the airspace. We could be seen as an enabler in some way, because we want to invite people in to use the airport. We are busy at the airport because we are training, testing and continuously flying there every day, but we want to let others have access to the airspace as well.
Lord Best: Do you have to turn them away? Is there more demand than you can cope with?
Stewart Pearce: I think that there will be once we have proven the first couple of customers to come through, yes. I am not 100% sure that the whole of the UAS community knows that we own West Wales Airport yet. We are encouraging people to—
Lord Best: Word will get out.
The Chair: I am afraid they will after today.
Stewart Pearce: As I said, we have very strong strategic plans to expand West Wales Airport and therefore give people access to hangars, school activities, apprenticeships and airspace—which we do not own, obviously. It is MoD-owned airspace, but we book it the same as anyone else. However, we have the advantage of being on the doorstep of the airspace.
Lord Best: So with your help, they will get their approvals and their permissions for testing.
Stewart Pearce: Yes. As of last week, we were enabling a small company with its permissions through the new Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) process with the CAA. Because we have already been through that and we have most of the information it needs, we help it as part of that process.
Lord Best: That is very helpful.
Q16 Baroness Valentine: I just want to do a deeper dive into procurement. You have touched a bit on this, but what is your experience of Ministry of Defence (MoD) procurement processes? How do those processes and contracts need to change to adapt at pace to new technologies and requirements, such as drone and anti-drone capabilities? What progress have the Government made in moving towards their new segmented procurement model?
Scott McClelland: As you say, the pace of procurement has not necessarily kept up with the pace of technology development. Traditional procurement does not necessarily work in the world that we operate in, which is about evolution, spiral development and rapid capability enhancement. It is evident that the MoD is seeking to shift here and it is obviously in the process of transition at the highest level, but there remains a large bureaucracy in defence procurement. It is positive that the strategic intent is set through the SDR, but we recognise that it will take time to change. I think that everyone, industry and MoD, would like to see that accelerated.
We have seen some demonstrable evidence of change in this area, which is positive. Working in partnership with the Rapid Capabilities Office, we brought into service the StormShroud capability within six to nine months. That is through from concept, procurement and into service delivery. At the moment we are seeing, through the Project NYX Apache “loyal wingman” project, a very aggressive procurement timeframe, which puts the emphasis on industry to deliver in much constrained timeframes and actually demonstrate capability, which is, again, a positive aspect of change.
Baroness Valentine: Is there any further comment from your colleague?
Stewart Pearce: No. Scott is the expert on procurement.
Baroness Valentine: You talked about a nine-month procurement process, but how much time would that take in an ideal world?
Scott McClelland: I should say that it is not the procurement cycle that has taken nine months. That is concept, through procurement, through us delivering platforms and through us training the end-user so that you have a fieldable capability all within that timeframe. The actual procurement element of that was significantly shorter.
Stewart Pearce: I can add one bit that will probably add to the timeline. We established a UAS training school at West Wales Airport in January. Again, we have an advantage over other UAS companies because they do not have access to locations where they can set up a school and have the access to the airspace. In the context of delivery, we can train people quite quickly at our own location on our own airfield into the airspace that we have already discussed. That becomes a problem with the training pipeline when you get a lot more business. As Scott has alluded to, we have been fortunate to win some good business and have been able to deliver at pace not only equipment but training the military people who will ultimately fly these aircraft across the world.
Q17 Lord Fuller: In a previous session, we heard about the culture of the MoD. Has the MoD recognised now—because the half-life of these new products is in weeks or months, not years—that, when it procures something, what it thinks it is procuring is probably not what it ends up with due to the iterative process? Have you ended up in a situation whereby what we end up with has not even been procured because what was procured was not even regulatorily possible anyway? We are in a loop here. Have you discovered that? Is there a distinction between purely military or dual-use stuff? I know that you do maritime surveillance and other areas.
Scott McClelland: On the positive front, there is a recognition of the need to change in this space, particularly around the pace and to be more comfortable around managing risk. As you say, we have platforms that have been operating and delivering. In Ukraine, we have done over 50,000 operational hours, for instance.
It is an interesting balance, because we have traditionally tried to overspecify the exact perfect solution. That in itself creates its own risk in respect of timeframes to move into actual operational capability. Our experience of the world is that capability needs to continuously evolve, and we are still changing our platforms in Ukraine through a fortnightly engineering cycle—so rapid iteration.
The next stage would perhaps be the MoD becoming more comfortable with contracting for the unknown and uncertainty. We know that, after our products are delivered, they will have to change throughout their life. What we cannot necessarily specify at this moment is exactly what those changes will look like. It is contracting for uncertainty and the unknown in that space. I think that will come through industry delivering and a building of trust in that partnership relationship.
Lord Fuller: Have you ended up in a situation where something—you have mentioned Ukraine—has been very effective and works well and is proven but then cannot be brought back to the UK because it is outside our regs? In other words, are we hobbling ourselves?
Stewart Pearce: Our process is to get the feedback from the end-user and then take it directly into the front end of the engineering world, where they will take that feedback and spiral develop our products to make them regulatorily sound. Scott mentioned the pace of change and that the military customer—non-Ukraine—needs to be comfortable with change and the rapid evolution of our products.
My answer to the question you asked about civil and military is that the platform is basically the same; it is what you put on the platform that is different for different operations. If you are looking at the maritime world, you will have a different sensor and a different payload versus if you want to laser target designate something from a payload. Civil and military are the same platform but different sensor payloads, effectively.
Scott McClelland: Perhaps it is not necessarily looking at it as slowing down in the UK but using the experience and environment in Ukraine to speed up activity to bring back into the UK.
Stewart Pearce: One advantage we have regulatorily—I will not go into the minutiae of the detail—is that you can make minor changes on your platforms, so payloads and little bits, without having to go through a regulatory process. It is only when you change larger items on the platforms that you have to go through the regulatory change that can take months—for instance, if you upgrade the engine. We had an engine on one of our larger products that was very hard to find parts for, so we had a new engine. That takes months to get through the regulatory burden. You have some flexibility to change when it comes to the platforms; you can change small items.
The Chair: With regulation, is it helpful to think of the outcome you want the kit to do rather than designing the kit—“I want you to be able to take out a tank”, or whatever—and that that is what you are contracting for rather than a piece of kit?
Scott McClelland: That is correct: contracting for the capability. One of the challenges of overspecifying a piece of kit or an output is that it removes industry’s opportunity to innovate and utilise the technology developments that we are working with to bring a better solution to the customer.
The Chair: Interesting.
Q18 Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill: Could I ask you about your company’s relationship with its own supply chain in the UK, and the materials, components and so on that it relies on to build its kit? You have described to us the context where you are making a forthcoming enormous investment. You have talked about increased orders coming through, the need to expand at pace and continuous evolution. In that context, can your supply chains keep up with your needs? If not, is there anything that the Government can do to help you assure the stability of those supply chains?
Scott McClelland: It is a great question and a continuous challenge for a scaling organisation, not just from a supply chain perspective but from our perspective as well. I said earlier that one of the reasons we selected the UK is the strengths in the supply chain and some of the expertise that that provides access to. The UK has a number of areas in there. As part of our investment programme, we are looking at how we increase our UK content and build a UK-based supply chain. Partly that is transitioning our European supply chain to find sovereign activity.
That also gives us an element of supply chain resilience in being part of that wider global model, as we have production activity in Portugal, the UK and coming on in France. Our aim is to have supply chains as local as possible but then bring it into a global model, providing increased resilience.
It is maybe not realistic at this stage to immediately say we can onshore every component in every subsystem. We still have a number of areas—some specialist sensors and payloads—that we have to secure through external partners, but we are working with UK MoD to try to develop sovereign-based solutions to this. Again, it is about trying to increase the sovereignty and resilience base across this.
Our approach is really around practical and phased: land; identify the critical dependencies; use UK suppliers where we can and, where there is no alternative, work with European suppliers or start to establish sovereign capability. In the past six to 12 months we have onboarded in excess of 200 UK-based suppliers and we will continue to work more with them. It is slightly challenging for me to say whether they are able to scale with us at the moment because we are still in the process of bringing our new production facility online, but an element of this is sourcing multiple suppliers for multiple components so that we do not become overly reliant on a single provider. I know that there is work ongoing across UK MoD and ADS (the aerospace, defence and security trade association) looking at supply chain resilience more broadly.
Where might MoD support? Having a collective overview of critical vulnerabilities across the entire defence ecosystem and enterprise, and working to collectively address them would be a very helpful start.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill: What proportion of your supplies at the moment are UK? You said that you are trying to transition to build up sovereign capability.
Scott McClelland: If I take the proportion of our suppliers onboarded over the past 12 months, around about 80% of them are UK-based. Unfortunately, I do not have the exact proportions of supply; we can follow up with this. We have an ambition to maximise our UK content as much as possible.
Q19 Lord Barber of Ainsdale: We have talked there about sovereignty and building up the supply chain from UK companies. I want to ask about overall capacity. Would you say that UK-based industry has the capacity and the ability to supply, let us say, sufficient drones, in particular over a sustained period in the event of war? The Prime Minister speculated in his Munich speech a little while ago about the risks of a conflict opening out by 2030, within the next five years. What is our capacity to respond to a challenge of that scale? What always-on capacity would be needed to respond appropriately? There are issues there for the Government on the scale and so on of orders that they provide, but to what extent is the sector equipped with the capacity to respond?
Scott McClelland: I cannot necessarily speculate on the total capacity of the industry, but would it be capable of sustaining the level of activity that we see in Ukraine at the moment? I think that would be very challenging. We have the potential to build a much greater capacity, and we are seeing the collection of a number of drone manufacturers in Swindon. Working in partnership, we can look at how we might be able to do collective talent programmes to build the skills base. It is also worth recognising that, in a sustained conflict, it is not just about our ability to produce platforms. There is a wider aspect to this as well, in respect of the ability to train operators to utilise these platforms.
Capacity for the drone industry is probably best thought of as an ecosystem. An always-on model is an interesting base and the capacity required would certainly not be possible through industry alone without government support in contracting for the availability base. We do not know exactly what the next conflict will look like. I think it is clear that autonomous systems will continue to play an increasingly critical role. We need capacity that is modular and has the ability to be upgraded, evolved and iterated. There is an element of thinking about not just how we increase capacity but how we increase industry’s capability to flex to changing demands and to change quickly, which is a slightly tougher challenge.
Stewart Pearce: Scott alluded to it briefly: it is not only the capacity to build the platforms but the capacity, once they are built, to test them and then to train people on them. As an example, to build some capacity and resilience at West Wales Airport, I am already hiring people to work towards a model where we are open seven days a week. Currently, the airport is only operating Monday to Friday, within the context that the airspace over the Welsh coast is open 24/7. The model that I want to come to in the next couple of years is for the airport to be open seven days a week, and then we can work towards 24 hours a day. That opens up huge capacity when it comes to flying and training on these platforms. You just go back into night shift, day shift, same as production. The Government would need to lean in with the regulators to enable airspace access, because we will not be the only ones trying to do this. As I have mentioned, there are not many places where people have the freedom to fly, so the regulatory burden would need to accelerate freedoms pretty quickly for people to build the capacity and resilience to fly once they have built them.
I look at it as a whole system. It is not just the platform; everything is a whole system. Everybody is a cog in the system and there are big chunks of things that need to be thought about other than building a platform.
Scott McClelland: Yes, and it is fair to say that I would expect the risk tolerance to change in a sustained conflict.
Stewart Pearce: We are already looking at employing more instructors in the training school because we are looking ahead at other contracts and we need to have that resilience in the training school early on to be able to deliver that. That can build pretty quickly.
The Chair: I think that Mr Pearce is probably a bit more than one cog in all this, I get the feeling.
Stewart Pearce: I am definitely one cog, yes.
Q20 Baroness Drake: We have talked about the various obstacles you face, but looking at UK defence procurement capacity and capability at a whole-system level, particularly the Strategic Defence Review’s reference to creating a new partnership between the two wings of defence, how does your relationship with the UK Government compare with your relationship with the Governments of other countries that you engage with or operate in? What could the UK learn from the relationship and how it is managed in other countries? Do you have particular exemplars you would quote?
Scott McClelland: We touched on this earlier. We operate internationally across a whole host of different countries and, naturally, we see different approaches to defence innovation and industrial partnership. That is not to say that there is anything wrong or the like across different models, but countries have their own drivers and interests that impact that relationship. We have built a strong relationship with the UK over the past decade. It takes time to build that trust and we look forward to continuing that. I do not think that there are any particular avenues, I am afraid to say, that I could suggest, “This country does this and therefore the UK should do that”.
The Chair: I am interested also, following up from Baroness Drake, in whether other countries come to you and say, “If you have it sorted with the UK Government, what can we learn from that?”
Stewart Pearce: We are slightly privileged here because I do not know of any of my colleagues who have the same interaction with their Governments; I do not know whether you do, Scott. We interact with our MPs, especially in Swindon. Will Stone talks to us regularly—most weeks, in fact. I am unaware of any other area of Tekever that has that level of interaction with government. Those are my initial thoughts.
Scott McClelland: That is fair. If we engage in countries where we have not had much activity or experience, we try to come in to share more around the operational lessons that we have seen through operating in Ukraine and in a world that the wider world is looking at and wanting to learn from. It is very much in the education base and trying to raise awareness. The UK has been doing a relatively decent job of actually learning those lessons.
The Chair: Thank you. I hope that does not leave us with nothing to say in our report; we were hoping for lots of things that we could say.
Thank you both very much, not just for your time but, needless to say, for all that your company is doing. We realise how important that has been and will continue to be, so we owe you some thanks for that. Thank you very much. If, having looked at the transcript later on, there is anything else you think would be helpful as we continue our work, we will be sitting for some time yet, so any other input you have would be very welcome.
Scott McClelland: Thank you very much for the invitation to provide evidence. There is a standing invitation to the committee to come and visit Tekever’s facilities and see what we do first hand.
The Chair: Thank you. That concludes this meeting.