Mr. Robert Watt:

On foot of the report, we sent out a revised circular in respect of the 2009 advice.

When the Comptroller and Auditor General was doing the report, there were discussions with colleagues and it was work that was ongoing in any event but, obviously, this gave an extra spur to do this. We sent out a circular to set that out, particularly with regard to the interval - the gap between valuations. Various buildings had not been valued since the early 2000s so we set out guidance about how we wanted more frequent valuation of buildings, the approach to depreciation and how we value an asset. Should it be based on the historic value adjusted for depreciation? Is it the replacement value? It depends on the nature of it. IT is more straightforward because it is more consumable. IT equipment will last between five and seven years and one can depreciate it at a rate. It is fairly straightforward. Obviously, valuing buildings or land is much more complex. The principle here is to have a system whereby we account for our assets, have a proper valuation of the assets and develop balance sheets, as we have done in the notes to the accounts and, ultimately, we move to a fully accrual system where decisions relating to the use or disposal of assets are fully reflected in the incentives Accounting Officers face when they are making decisions. We value this-----