Contents
New Petitions
Autism Support (PE1837)
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. The first new petition is PE1837, on providing clear direction and investment for autism support, which was lodged by Stephen Leighton. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people who do not have a learning disability and/or mental disorder can access support, and to allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland. I welcome Alexander Burnett MSP for this petition.
A submission has been received from the Scottish Government. The petitioner was invited to respond to that submission but has not done so to date. The Scottish Government highlights that support for autistic people is available from a wide range of sources, including health and social care partnerships, national organisations such as Scottish Autism and the National Autistic Society for Scotland, and local organisations including autistic-led organisations. The Scottish Government advises that it is also working collaboratively with the national autism charities and autistic-led organisations to deliver a national autism post-diagnostic support service.
I will call Alexander Burnett first, before we reflect on how we might take the petition forward.
Thank you for having me back for a second time this morning. I would just like you to know my interest as a co-founder of the cross-party group on autism. I am sure that my colleagues on the committee will, as constituency or regional MSPs, have a huge amount of casework relating to autism. The scale of the subject is such that it requires further consideration on a number of points. I have noted the submissions and the response from the Government, and I also see the recommendation that the petition could be closed for three reasons. I would just like to address very briefly those reasons.
The first reason that is given is that the Scottish Government is working collaboratively to deliver a national autism post-diagnostic support service. That fails to recognise that one of the largest problems facing people with autism is diagnosis. The length of time to receive diagnosis is shocking. People do not get diagnosed in time, so subsequent services and support are delayed.
The second reason is that the Government has said that it has established a national autism implementation team to support health and social care partnerships. I point out that the petitioner works in this sector and that his real, lived experience of how that is not working is why he has brought the petition.
The third point is about the £1.2 million of funding that the Government said was spent supporting a national mapping exercise with each local authority. I point out that the strategy was produced back in 2011. I read comments this morning from back then that said there was a realisation that a concerted effort was needed to make sure that something was done. We are nearly a decade on and, although much has changed in the landscape with the creation of integration authorities, it would be an extremely bold statement to say that the lives of autistic people have improved in that time.
I urge the committee to keep the petition alive and to give the petitioner a chance to respond, and also to invite the two organisations that are mentioned throughout a lot of the evidence that has been submitted, Scottish Autism and the National Autistic Society, to respond and clarify to the committee their views on some of the Government’s comments. There is plenty of talk about things being done, but I think that the experience on the ground of those dealing with autism cases and corresponding with our various local authorities is that there is very little evidence to show that those things have materialised in local authorities or healthcare partnerships.
I think that there is an issue. We asked the petitioner to respond and he has not done so; there may be very good reasons for that. I am alive to the fact that this is the first opportunity to discuss the petition, and the pressure on the committee is simply to try to work out whether there is something that we can do given that we will be operating only until March. Reflecting on what has just been said, I think that, if we close the petition, it will be because we do not have the time to do something serious with it, as it has been suggested that the reasons that the Scottish Government has given need further interrogation. When a Scottish Government responds at first opportunity to a petition and the argument that it makes is convincing and compelling, it is entirely reasonable to close the petition but, given that there has been some suggestion that that needs to be tested a bit further, I wonder whether there is something that we could do.
We have to make a judgment on it. We do not want to misrepresent what we can do, but I wonder whether we should at least give the petitioner the opportunity to respond. I will be very much guided by my colleagues and what they think on this. The big issues here will not go away and it may be that, again, this is something that could be reintroduced in another session of Parliament. I am aware that this is only our first look at the petition, and it might be that we want to do something further with it, recognising the seriousness of the issues that have been flagged up.
Like you, I am in a bit of a dilemma with the petition, as I wonder whether the committee has time to do it justice but I would like to keep it open. I would like us to write to the Scottish Government about the issues that Alexander Burnett raised to see whether we can get some answers on them. We could decide once we have got some answers back from the Scottish Government. I am open to any other suggestions from committee members.
We should keep the petition open. Alexander Burnett has raised some queries to the statements the Government has made. I think that we should certainly write to the Government again to get it to address the issues that he has raised in order to open them up and get a balanced discussion. Hopefully, the petitioner will make some statements as well. We have until March, which is a few months away yet, so there is time to get some written information in and make a decision at that point.
Alexander Burnett has given strong evidence on behalf of the petitioner and I think that we should keep the petition open. I encourage the petitioner to get back in touch himself. I think that it would be interesting to hear the views of the organisations that specifically deal with autism, the National Autistic Society and Scottish Autism. I am open to writing back to the Scottish Government and the minister to get their views on what has come up during this meeting as well.
I am a member of the cross-party group on mental health and the cross-party group on dyslexia, so this subject is close to my heart. I welcome the strong points put over by Alexander Burnett this morning—thank you for those, Alexander. I believe that we should certainly keep the petition open, and I encourage the petitioner to respond if he can. I would also like to hear more from the appropriate organisations that deal with autism, because I think that this is a vitally important area. It is very important that we get a handle on the issue of people who go undiagnosed, and that the Government gets a handle on that through the medical world and support world. I suggest that we also seek evidence from those involved with children’s panels. People with autism can come before those panels from time to time, and it would be very useful to have some practical input as well, just as background so that we know the full extent of this issue.
I suggest that the first step is to write to organisations that support people with autism, to get their sense of whether what Alexander Burnett has said is accurate in their experience. It seems to me that the petitioner is somebody with autism but without learning disabilities, and he is finding himself going round and round in a system that is not reflecting his particular needs. There is also an issue of the wide range of needs; autism is a spectrum and, therefore, by definition, there is a wide range of needs. I find the argument about the issues around diagnosis compelling, because things follow from diagnosis, so if someone does not have a diagnosis, that is problematic.
I suggest to Maurice Corry that the issue of the children’s hearings system might be the next stage, because it might not be the case that young people with autism but no learning disabilities are inappropriately supported and end up in a position where they cannot engage with schools. However, that is something that we or—if we are being realistic—a future committee might be able to look at.
I think that, in these circumstances, the agreement of the committee is that we want initially to write to the organisations that support people with autism to ask them to reflect on what has been said here and what has been said in the petition, and ask the petitioner to respond too. We recognise that we need to explore further with the Scottish Government whether what it has asserted to be the case may not be what people’s experience of it is. Does Alexander Burnett want to make any last comments before we move on?
No, other than to say that I am extremely grateful to the committee for keeping the petition open and delighted with the route that the committee is taking on it. Thank you very much.
In that case, thank you very much too for your attendance.
Maternity Models (Remote and Rural Areas) (PE1839)
The next new petition is PE1839, by Maria Aitken on behalf of Caithness Health Action Team, calling on the Scottish Government to review maternity models in remote and rural areas. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to ask all relevant health boards to review their maternity model to ensure that it meets the needs of remote and rural communities. In its submission, the Scottish Government explains that it is discussing changes in rural service provision and arrangements for obstetric transfers across Scotland. Furthermore, a maternity transport expert working group has been convened to develop a tool to assist clinicians in their decision-making process.
The Scottish Government highlights that NHS Highland is part of the best start north steering group, which was set up to review maternity and neonatal services across NHS Shetland, NHS Orkney, NHS Highland and NHS Grampian. Inclusive of that programme of work, NHS Highland is undertaking a review of its perinatal mental health service and, with Scottish Government investment, will be looking to expand its current perinatal mental health service provision. The petitioner believes that the centralisation of maternity services, when there is a distance of over 100 miles to the nearest service, has a significant negative effect on mothers’ perinatal mental health, their unborn babies, and children left separated from their main caregivers while mother and father are miles away. Rhoda Grant is here in support of the petition.
Thank you, convener. I appreciate your calling me again. I think that this is the fourth petition that I am speaking to; I appreciate your forbearance. The petition is important and the petitioner has made her case well. I have been involved for a number of years with mothers’ concerns about the maternity services in Caithness. In February 2019, at First Minister’s question time, I asked about a case in which one twin was born in Golspie and the other in Inverness. That seems like a horrendous circumstance.
12:30The staff available that night made sure that nothing went wrong and that the delivery was safe, but you can imagine the stress of travelling over 100 miles in a land ambulance, in labour, knowing that there are complications and that you need a hospital where there are obstetricians. I said when they changed Caithness from an obstetrics-led maternity unit to a midwife-led maternity unit that they should do a risk assessment of the transfer journeys to Raigmore that would be needed if there were complications in a woman’s labour. I have looked at the matter in some depth, especially after the case that I cited, and it appears that if a woman is in labour, helicopter transport is not an option, because a helicopter is an unsuitable environment in which to give birth, because of the movement and the lack of space and the like.
I have also pursued the Scottish specialist transport and retrieval service—ScotSTAR—which is run by the Scottish Ambulance Service and which flies specialists to the area of need. They can also provide retrieval teams to fly people back to the specialist units. I know that they deal with paediatrics, but I have been pursuing whether they could deal with obstetrics as well, and fly obstetricians out to places like Caithness General, rather than expecting the mum to travel 100 miles in the back of an ambulance with no safe delivery space between Caithness general hospital and Raigmore hospital in Inverness. The Scottish Government needs to look at that. I know that it is looking at best start, but the trouble is that the work has been stalled and no outcome has been forthcoming.
The difficulty is that this has gone on for a number of years. An added complication is that mums, knowing that there could be complications, or that there might be, are now opting for elective caesareans. A caesarean is a major operation, but that is the only way they can deal with family constraints, so that other children are looked after. They are booked in, which means that they have a time and a date when they will have to go to Inverness and they can make suitable arrangements. Having major surgery because you cannot access obstetric services on your doorstep is not safe, either.
I urge the committee to take the matter seriously, get in touch with the Government, put some speed around the best start review, and make sure that there are specialists available who can fly out to those mums, rather than having to put somebody in labour in the back of an ambulance without any realistic knowledge of whether they will give birth in the back of an ambulance on the road or reach their destination in time. There have also been stories of mums in labour reaching Raigmore in the back of an ambulance, being told that there is no room and having to go on further to Aberdeen, which is totally unacceptable. The petition is serious and it needs to be considered seriously.
Edward Mountain has asked that we record his support for the petition. He cannot attend the meeting, as he is convening a Rural Economy Committee meeting. Members can bear that in mind.
Treatment for newborns and mothers in rural areas is very important. Some serious thought is needed about what might go wrong to ensure that all eventualities are covered. There is a great amount of detail to be sorted through and planning to be done. If a review is taking place, we need a timescale on it. I remember, two years ago, asking the minister about best start; I did not get very satisfactory answers to some my questions. We should write to the Scottish Government again to ask what the timescale is for the review and make sure that all the bases are covered to the public’s satisfaction.
The anxiety that must be experienced by expectant mothers in rural areas must sometimes be quite terrifying. Fortunately, being a man, I do not have to go through that process, and I guess that I am lucky. I worry that there are problems in certain places that could be avoided. Natural births are always a risk, but I think that we can cover most of the risk much more satisfactorily than we do. We should keep the petition open, write to the Government to get a timescale on the review—and make sure that we get the right answers. We can take a view once we have answers from the Government.
I absolutely support the petition in the round. I agree that all health boards and organisations should consider what would be the best services for local need. Nobody wants to send pregnant women 100 miles to give birth and I would love to see something provided locally, if there is a different way to do it. I said right at the start that I supported the recommendations in the NHS Highland review. I am not a medical expert, but the model had to change. I will point out that the petition states:
“In NHS Highland, the decision was made in November 2016 that the obstetric maternity model was ‘unsafe’ and that the maternity service at Caithness General Hospital in Wick was to be downgraded to a Community Midwifery Unit service.”
When the petition says that the review deemed the current model “unsafe”, that model was obstetrics without paediatrics. It was an unsafe model because a baby died. The review also pointed out that, under that model, there could have been other babies who died and who might have been saved. Using the word “unsafe” in the petition does a great disservice to the families who suffered because of that model of service delivery and who welcomed the reconfiguration to Caithness maternity unit.
We must take it into account that we have moved on since the reconfiguration. The review was published in 2016, and there has been a lot of progress since, both in the community and in NHS Highland. The service is not perfect—nothing is—and nobody says that anything is risk free. As I said, I absolutely agree that services provided anywhere—in urban, rural or island communities—should be what is appropriate for that community. I am content to write to the Scottish Government to find out whether what Rhoda Grant suggests would be possible. I am open to bringing on anything from other countries to try to make this less risky, if you want to use that word. I am absolutely alive to all the issues that have come up, and probably will continue to come up. There is a lot of work.
Local councillors are working with the NHS. Rhoda Grant and Edward Mountain obviously have regular contact with NHS Highland, as do I and other elected members. I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government to ask for an update on the maternity transport working group and, as Tom Mason suggested, the best start review. Convener, you also said in your opening remarks that NHS Highland is undertaking a review of its perinatal mental health services, which is great. Work is on-going.
I think that there is a lot of feeling that, just because we are so far north, we have been left behind and services have all been centralised in Inverness. As opposed to the petition about HIAL that we discussed previously, where I did not agree with centralisation, the decision about CMU was not made just to send everybody to Inverness to give birth. The decision was made because of a massive safety issue. We need to keep that in mind, but of course be open to suggestions about how we make the service better.
I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government on the points that have already been raised by my colleagues. I support all that has been said. I also think that services must be appropriate to each community to minimise risk, but obviously safety is foremost and paramount to that. Yes, there is the question of centres of excellence. I know that that is the policy in Scotland and we also have that in the central belt, but nevertheless, the delivery of care in our communities is terribly important. We must not lose sight of that.
We must obviously deliver the very best care for our expectant mothers in every way or shape possible, and avoid having to travel 100-mile or more distances, or anything like that, to give birth. I support writing to the Scottish Government to confirm the timescales that will be implemented at the conclusion of the discussion and also the outcome of the work of the maternity transport expert working group. I support the petition remaining open until we can get clarification and feedback.
I am happy to go with my colleagues’ recommendations.
In the interests of time, since we are under a bit of pressure, I will not call Rhoda Grant again, because I think that people have responded to what she said about writing to the Scottish Government. The issues to highlight would be those that are reflected in what she and other committee members have said.
Gail Ross made a challenging point about when centralisation is centralisation for its own sake, and when it is necessary. We had this argument about acute services in Glasgow, where people felt that the hospital being on the other side of the city was too far away. The issue is greatly amplified in remote, rural and fragile communities.
For the benefit of Rhoda Grant and Edward Mountain, I will say that the committee notes those points and that we will write to the Scottish Government in the terms that have been described. I thank Rhoda Grant for her attendance. I am not sure whether she is engaged in any more meetings. I would not be surprised.
Racism in Education (PE1840)
The next new petition is PE1840, by Debora Kayembe on behalf of the freedom walk, calling on the Scottish Government to urgently address racism in the Scottish education system by implementing anti-racist education in the classroom, delivering anti-racist training to all school staff and recording, monitoring and addressing racist incidents in schools.
Submissions have been received from the Scottish Government and the petitioner.
The Scottish Government’s submission notes that teachers are expected at all stages of their careers to demonstrate professional values and personal commitment to social justice and cultural diversity by engaging learners in real world issues. It also advises that the national framework for inclusion has been designed to ensure that all teachers are appropriately guided and supported throughout their careers towards gaining the required knowledge and understanding of inclusive education.
The petitioner’s submission states:
“There is nothing within the Scottish Government response that demonstrates that anti-racist training is being provided to qualified teachers in a consistent and mandatory way.”
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I found the petition interesting. I know that we have dealt with other petitions in a similar vein. We have a lot of submissions from organisations, including material from the Educational Institute of Scotland, from Education Scotland, ”and we have “Respect for All: national approach to anti-bullying, which I was involved in as part of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee of the Scottish Parliament, which informed that new policy when we did our bullying in schools inquiry, which was a big eye-opener.
This is another situation—we have had them before, with many petitions—where we get the official line and then the petitioner comes back with an equally interesting couple of points. We should write back to the Scottish Government seeking clarity on the points that the petitioner has raised about anti-racism. There is a difference between promoting diversity and being anti-racist, as has been pointed out. I would be interested in seeking further views. I think that the petition is too important to close straight away. That is the course of action that I recommend.
I agree entirely with Gail Ross. I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government to seek further views on the matter.
Like my colleagues, I am quite happy that we write to the Scottish Government seeking views on the petitioner’s submission.
[Inaudible.]—views of Government on those issues. I think that it is appropriate. I agree that would be best.
I think that there is a particular issue, which is not so much about what teachers teach. Other petitions have had quite a lot about, for instance, teaching history other than what would be regarded as mainstream history that excluded the experience of a range of groups of people. This petition talks specifically about training for teachers and whether it is consistent and mandatory.
12:45Based on our discussion, I think that we are proposing to write to the Scottish Government seeking its views on the questions raised in the petitioner’s submission of 8 December 2020.
Care Homes (Designated Visitors) (PE1841)
The final new petition for consideration today is PE1841. It has been lodged by Natasha Hamilton on behalf of Care Home Relatives Scotland. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to allow designated visitors into care homes to support loved ones.
The Scottish Government’s submission explains that given the significantly higher risks that Covid-19 poses for care home residents, it has been necessary to pursue a different relaxation of the restrictions to the relaxation of the restrictions for the general population. It stresses, however, that it must strike a balance between the risk that is posed by Covid-19 and the impact that family visits have on the wellbeing of residents.
The Government explains that guidance has regularly been updated to reflect new evidence, and with a view to opening up more opportunities for families and friends to visit, including, on 3 December, guidance that was specifically aimed at helping care homes to support visiting over the Christmas and new year period.
The Government also highlights that it is introducing lateral flow testing in care homes, which will be offered to designated visitors on the day of their visit. The tests were introduced in 14 early-adopter care homes in five local authority areas last week. Key learning from that will inform wider roll-out. Delivery of lateral flow testing kits to all care homes will start this week. Where cares homes are unable to make use of those kits, PCR—polymerase chain reaction—testing of visitors will be available when necessary, in order to facilitate visiting over Christmas and new year.
The Government further highlights that care homes will now be closed to new admissions and visitors for 14 days rather than 28 days following an outbreak, which will avoid there being long periods when care homes are closed to visitors.
Since the meeting papers were published, we have received a written submission from the petitioner. In it, she states that there is currently a postcode lottery regarding visiting arrangements in care homes, and explains that the goal of the petition is legislation to guarantee that care home residents will never be isolated from family or friends for such a long period again.
I note that Monica Lennon MSP had hoped to be able to be here for consideration of the petition, but is unable to join us because of a clash of diary commitments.
I am interested to know what members think that we can do about this. It is a very big issue, and one that is shifting over time. The consequences for families and their loved ones are massive, but we recognise the risk. I wonder whether, even when the Government has provided guidance, things move on. Individual care homes have been risk-averse, perhaps because they do not have access to testing or proper PPE.
There is a question about what we can do, but it feels to me that this is an important issue, so just to close the petition without further action would perhaps minimise the seriousness of the issue more generally. It might be that the Government has more to say to us, particularly about the petitioner’s suggestion about legislation that would guarantee that in the future residents would not be isolated from family and friends, even in extreme circumstances. I find that interesting. The petitioner is almost asking how we can learn not just what we could do in the short term, but in the long term, should there be another such crisis.
I declare that I am a member of the COVID-19 Committee, which scrutinises the Government’s coronavirus legislation every week. This issue has been raised very often at that committee and we discuss it with the public health team of the Scottish Government and with ministers.
We have learned a lot from the pandemic; I think that something should be done through future regulations. I am against closing the petition and think that we need to take more action on it. I would call on the Scottish Government to give us more information about timescales, what is being developed, and what the plan is. My experience from the COVID-19 Committee is that when we question and interrogate the Scottish Government and scrutinise the legislation, there is certainly a lot more that we can get on what the Government is thinking and doing. I recommend that we write to the Scottish Government, asking about plans and the way forward.
I thank the petitioner for lodging a very important petition. Progress is being made—there is no doubt about that, which I can say from being on the COVID-19 Committee. Some positive things are happening. Lateral flow testing is coming through, and the reduction of the length of closures from 28 days to 14 days is also welcome. However, there is still much that we can find out, so I ask that we write to the Government seeking more information.
This is a very emotive petition. It affects not only families and relatives, but the residents in care homes.
I have been in contact with a few care homes in my area about visiting. The issues that come across to do with letting people visit are the risk to residents and the duty of care for staff. I know that the Scottish Government is working to find ways and means to allow visiting. As Maurice Corry does, I think that we should write to the Government to ask about its plans and a timescale, but beyond that, can we take the petition anywhere? The subject is changing all the time.
I am minded to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, once we have written to the Scottish Government.
I think that we should keep the petition open because the issues are very important. Some of the problems that we have had up to now have resulted from there being no initial framework for sorting the situation out but, in hindsight, we were dealing with something that nobody knew what to do about. As we move forward, we must assume that similar problems will occur in the future—from a different virus or another situation—so it is necessary to put a transparent legal framework in place. What that framework should be, I have no idea.
I think that we should try to get out of the Government what its plans are for reviewing what has been done and how it has been done and, when the framework is put in place, what level of transparency there will be, what Parliament’s role will be, what role experts will have, and so on. There are many issues. The petitioner has quite rightly started the ball rolling; I think that we should keep it up. The petition should be continued now and into the next session of Parliament until we get the situation sorted out, so that we do not repeat the agony that the country has suffered.
Maurice Corry made a very important point. I will just throw out something that I had not thought of before now. If the matter is being dealt with by the COVID-19 Committee, how much value would we add by pursuing it? Would that just duplicate that committee’s work? I am not, however, saying that we should not pursue the matter, just because another committee is also doing that.
We also have to take into account not just testing in care homes, but the fact that we have a vaccine now that is being given to care home residents and staff, who are right at the top of the list of recipients.
In addition to writing to the minister, we could write to Donald Macaskill from Scottish Care, which is the organisation that represents care homes. I know that it is difficult to provide timetables, because we do not know when the next batch of the vaccine will arrive or when another vaccine will be approved. Obviously, when that happens it will change things; it will make the situation a lot easier. That is not to say that it is an easy process, anyway—do not get me wrong.
I would be happy enough if we were to write to the minister and Mr Macaskill. I wonder whether we should also write to the COVID-19 Committee, as a courtesy, to let it know what we are doing, because this is a matter that it covers. I am open to suggestions.
We have a dilemma; the petition is about a situation that is moving fast. We are running out of time, but we want to make it clear that we think that it is a very important issue. I wonder whether we should flag the petition up to the COVID-19 Committee and make it clear that we think that there is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed.
I am on the horns of a dilemma. Should we keep the petition open? The immediate issue is how to make sure that the matter is sorted out and that the Government takes it seriously. It might be that we should write to the Government and flag up the petition to the COVID-19 Committee, while acknowledging to the petitioner that the bulk of the work on what is asked for in the petition—to make sure that the situation never happens again—cannot be addressed by the end of March. It would be very useful were a petition on the subject to come in the next session of Parliament. We want to underscore the seriousness of the subject and flag up to the COVID-19 Committee that there are questions that should be asked. We, as a committee, then have to decide whether that means that the best way we could focus on and address the matter would be through legislation.
Maurice Corry wants to come in. I would be interested to hear views on the dilemma that I have identified.
On the point that the convener and Gail Ross made, the COVID-19 Committee would welcome hearing from this committee about the petition. However, The COVID-19 Committee is a reactive committee; we react to and scrutinise regulations that are presented to us every week by the Government. We can, however, ask questions from time to time. I think that it would be worth our while to make the point that we have the petition running in this committee—the COVID-19 Committee could help us to formulate ideas and questioning that we would take forward to scrutiny. Maybe the committees’ clerking teams could liaise about that and report to the convener. I think that the COVID-19 Committee would accept that.
Okay. The committee wants to say that there is a serious issue that has not been resolved. Maybe we should write to Donald Macaskill, whose organisation represents care homes, to get a sense of whether there is resistance from them. Another organisation that we might ask whether there is resistance is the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland. We should flag up the petition to the COVID-19 Committee.
We should be honest with the petitioner about the fact that there is a limit to what we can do—not because we think that the matter is not important, but because things are moving quickly and parliamentary time is running out. It might be that our legacy paper will recommend looking further at the issue, or we could, as I have suggested, say to the petitioner that they might want to lodge another petition on legislation to ensure that we never again have to deal with such circumstances. In the middle of the emergency, it was quite evident that the impact on care homes was not fully appreciated.
Do members agree that we will not close the petition immediately, that we will write to the Scottish Government and the others that have been suggested, and that we flag up the petition to the COVID-19 Committee? We are alive to the fact that it is not possible for us to address by March 2021 the substance of the petition, which is about future-proofing policy on what we do in a pandemic or other crisis. We have agreement that that is the best way forward.
We acknowledge that this has been a very important discussion; indeed, we have had substantial discussion of a range of petitions today.
I thank the clerks, the broadcasting team and our visitors, of whom there seem to be quite a number this week, and members.
13:00 Meeting continued in private until 13:07.Previous
Continued Petitions