That's a live issue for us at this time. I won't go into the conclusions of that work, but some of the working papers have already been published.
There are three issues that we've set out that need to be addressed this time before we renew that agreement.
First, what's the right measure for inflation? Should we change from the CPI that we've used traditionally?
Second, what is the level, which is the question you've just raised; 2%, or some other number?
Third, how do we integrate financial stability issues into that policy framework?
The one about the level is perhaps the most prominent issue, and it's because of the experience of the last few years when central banks, including ourselves, got to the lower bound. If interest rates had been one percentage point higher when it all started, you would have more room to manoeuvre. That's an important consideration. That experience has of course been historically quite rare, but now it has happened so everyone has to think about it.
The other side of that discussion is now that we understand that negative interest rates are possible, that also gives us more room to manoeuvre than we thought we had before. So it's those two sides of the coin that need to be assessed. What are the relative costs and benefits about that extra flexibility? What would it buy us? That's the question, especially when we have unconventional tools in the tool box that can be used if need be.
So it's a live question still. We're just at the stage where we'll begin concrete discussions with the Department of Finance in the next month or two.