COVID-19 Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Official Report 717KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/374)

Good morning, and welcome to the 21st meeting of the Covid-19 Committee. We have received apologies from Beatrice Wishart MSP, who is attending another Parliamentary committee this morning. I welcome to the meeting Willie Rennie MSP, who is attending as substitute.

This morning’s meeting will include two evidence sessions. We will take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, Europe and External Affairs on subordinate legislation until 10:30 am. I will then suspend the meeting for up to 15 minutes to allow a changeover of witnesses. The committee will then take evidence from stakeholders on the impact of possible restrictions during winter.

The first item on the agenda is evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, Europe and External Affairs on the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2020. The SSI gives effect to the restrictions that were announced by the First Minister last Tuesday, 10 November, which have now come into force.

The cabinet secretary is accompanied by Professor Jason Leitch, who is the national clinical director in the Scottish Government. I welcome you both to the meeting and invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement before we turn to opening questions.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the regulations with the committee. As on previous occasions when I have appeared before the committee—which have been many and varied, I have to say—I am open to questions, as Jason Leitch will be, on issues that arise.

The regulations to be discussed formally today adjust the levels-based approach that is currently in place across Scotland. They modify some restrictions and requirements for the different levels, and set out changes to the level that applies to three areas of Scotland. All other areas remain in the same level under the regulations. The areas that are affected are Fife Council, Angus Council, and Perth and Kinross Council local government areas. All of which moved to level three as a result of the regulations.

The Scottish Government made regulations by way of made affirmative procedure on 12 November, and the regulations came into force on 13 November. Of course, as the First Minister set out in Parliament yesterday, we will be making further changes to the levels that apply in certain areas of Scotland. We intend to bring in legalisation later this week to move areas from level 3 to level 4, as outlined in the First Minister’s statement yesterday.

That is a basic explanation of what the regulations are about. However, committee members will want to reach more widely—I am sure of that.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will turn to questions. The first is about anomalies in local authority areas. For example, rural areas with low transmission rates are being affected by urban areas with higher transmission rates. Has any decision been made about applying a more regional approach within local authority areas? I ask that with special regard to the Highlands and Islands and your constituency of Argyll and Bute, which is a potential example of such a situation.

You and I are both very aware of that issue, particularly in Argyll and Bute. We are taking part in a discussion with the Islay resilience committee on Friday morning about that issue. In places like Islay and Mull, and in mainland areas of other local authorities, there will clearly be concerns—as there are in mainland areas of Argyll and Bute—about substantial differences in prevalence between areas. I will ask Jason Leitch to say a word or two about that, because we addressed it last time we were both at the committee.

However, although there remains a commitment to examine the matter, it is complex and complicated. There are issues of observance, information and unexpected outbreaks. There have been cases on Mull in recent weeks, and there are cases on Benbecula, which is in a level 1 area. I would like to see such changes, but I think that it is not currently possible to completely embrace and encompass them because of their complications. For example, there remain issues in relation to travel that are contentious even between local authority areas.

At present, the best opportunity for any area is for the whole area to come down through the levels. However, I am still keen to see progress as we move forward, and I remain committed to achieving that.

Perhaps Jason Leitch would like to say a word or two about our approach. Issues of commonality, such as in use of medical services, also impinge on decisions; they are not simply about geography.

Thank you for having me back, convener. Good morning, everyone.

I want to underline two points, both of which Mr Russell has covered. One is the communal nature of our healthcare services. For example, for people on Arran, University hospital Crosshouse and the Queen Elizabeth university hospital would be used as the principal escalation hospitals. If those were busy with cases from Glasgow city, I am afraid that that would be a consequence of our needing intensive care units. Much of that work can be done in NHS Ayrshire and Arran, but as we escalate cases, we escalate numbers. For a child from Arran, escalation would be to one of the Ayrshire hospitals and then the Royal hospital for children in Glasgow—quite rightly, because that is where the high-level expertise is.

The other issue is, unfortunately, the nature of the infectious agent—how quickly the virus takes hold. Since we last met, there has been a significant outbreak on Arran. Because the island previously had almost no cases, in the restrictions that we are discussing, which were made a week or so ago, we could have decided not to put it on the same level as the rest of the Ayrshire and Arran NHS area. That would probably not have made any difference to that recent outbreak. However, that outbreak illustrates that one case becomes 13 cases then 40 cases before you can turn your head—it is so quick. That is why we are being cautious, but are not completely ignoring geography.

It has been quite a big step to go from national measures to local authority area measures. The number of conversations that we are now having with local authority leaders, officials and elected members is time consuming but justified, and are the right thing to do. To go down one more level would add complexity for which we are not ready.

Thank you for that. My second and final question is about the efficacy of measures that have been in place for some time. It is probably more for Professor Leitch than for the cabinet secretary.

Many of the areas that were moved to level 4 yesterday, which were in level 3 last week, have had a ban on households mixing since 1 September, which is more than two and a half months ago. Hospitality restrictions have been in place, in different forms, for around a month. In the light of the sustained high number of cases, have those measures been effective? I would also welcome your views on whether the level of public compliance has changed over the past few months.

That is the million dollar question to which the world wants an answer, and it is one that I am commonly asked. The second most common is, “Why can I do this but not that?” and the most common is, “Where is transmission happening?”

We can never be absolutely sure where transmission is happening. We can get themes from test and protect data, and the genomics helps us a little. From the fundamental science on the virus, we know that transmission happens when people come together—when a positive case meets a non-positive case. All the virus wants to do is jump from someone in whom it is already hosted to a new person in whom it is not. Every time people meet—at work, at play, at school or wherever else—that is possible, therefore trying to reduce such opportunities is the way forward.

That is why the lockdown worked, from 23 March in our country and in multiple other versions around the world. However, if we look at the data, we can see that it took eight weeks for us to get to very low numbers of cases, because it takes a long time for the virus to come out of the system and the numbers to go down.

On 9 October, I and my senior clinical colleagues published an evidence paper that said that the doubling time for positive cases of the virus was nine days. At that time we had around 1,000 cases per day. That meant that we would have had 2000 cases per day on 18 October and on 27 October, nine days later, we would have had 4000 cases per day. That did not happen. The population of Scotland stopped that happening.

What appears to have happened since—one cannot know such things when putting restrictions in place—is that the system that we created for the population, and the population’s compliance with that system, has got us to 1200 cases a day, with 40 to 60 deaths. That is roughly where we are, and it appears to be stubbornly stable. We appear not to have turned the corner, hence the advice and decisions of the past 24 hours.

That is hard. The science cannot know that X will lead to Y—it is not as simple as that. People should be hopeful because what they have done so far has worked, but it has just not worked quickly enough to get the misery of the virus over with. Too many people are dying because too many people are being infected.

If the cabinet secretary does not want to add to that, I will move on to Monica Lennon.

I will ask about travel—the travel ban comes into effect this week—and households mixing.

Can the cabinet secretary and Professor Leitch say what data they have about compliance across the country? Are there areas—perhaps because of geography or because they are tourist destinations—where there is more travel? People have been asking me what has gone wrong in Lanarkshire and why we are going on to level 4. There is a perception that lots of people have been breaking the rules and going into each other’s houses.

What are the facts? Are people travelling outwith their local authorities? To what extent are they mixing with other households?

It will be helpful if Jason Leitch begins by addressing the science behind the travel regulations. I am happy to come in after that.

We cannot know for sure: we are not in everybody’s house. I think that the vast majority of people in Lanarkshire and everywhere else are following the rules and doing a good job. There are people on the edge in every local authority area who are not following the rules. Interaction and transmission are happening; they must be, for us to be getting 1,200 new cases a day. Transmission does not just happen; it happens in places where people mix, including people’s houses.

The restriction on travel is principally to stop people moving from areas of high risk to areas of low risk, whether it is a Greek island, Elgin or Somalia. We are trying to reduce transmission from high-risk areas to low-risk areas, and to stop low-risk people moving to high-risk areas, because the opportunities for the virus to spread increase if that happens. That is why the advice is to impose travel restrictions.

I am happy to furnish the committee with the travel information that we have. We have information on the prevalence of car use and public transport use. That information indicates that travel has been rising from its low level in the first complete lockdown. Putting the travel restrictions in place is designed to make sure that travel is reduced. We want to see how much it is reduced by the level 3 restrictions, and by the level 4 ones.

If Monica Lennon would like it, I will ensure that the committee gets information on the travel detail that we have, which is reasonably comprehensive. I know that the committee will want to return to the matter after we have seen the effects of the travel restrictions.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence. I think that Monica Lennon is referring to people who say, “So and so is travelling from here to there.” I have heard in my own area about people travelling so that they could go to a different area for a meal or something like that. It is important that we discourage that.

The First Minister addressed the issue of enforcement, which was raised by Donald Cameron yesterday during questions on the Covid-19 statement. As has been the case so far with the police, enforcement should be done sensitively and should observe the four Es—engage, explain, encourage, and enforce. However, in the end we must ensure that travel does not disrupt what we hope will be successful attempts to reduce prevalence of the virus.

09:15  

That is very helpful, and I am sure that the committee appreciates the offer of further information.

Professor Leitch said that transmission happens where people come together. I will raise the issue of schools, because I became aware from a media report last night—it is just one example, but it concerns a lot of pupils—that 400 pupils from a high school in Glenrothes in Fife are self-isolating after a Covid outbreak there. There are 16 positive cases that include pupils and staff. The headteacher has said that half the school’s pupils are currently attending school.

In big schools, potentially hundreds of households are mixing and coming into contact. The Parliament will have a debate on schools this afternoon, but every day and every week, the Government is studying patterns of behaviour and looking at the genomics and all the evidence. What is the latest picture on schools, given that we are seeing such outbreaks, and levels of disruption to young people’s education such as the case in which 400 pupils from one school are having to stay at home?

I will let Jason Leitch talk in more detail about the situation on the ground.

We have clearly tried to maintain as much normality in schooling as possible. That remains a key objective. Clearly, there are strong reasons for doing so—we are aware, not least, of criticism about disrupting young people’s education, and of a range of issues to do with mental health and wellbeing, which are really important. Learning is at the top of the list, but there are other issues.

Maintaining education is extremely important, and we must do it safely and in a way that is carefully monitored. We intend to do that and to ensure that normality in schooling is restored and sustained to the greatest possible degree. With your permission, convener, Jason Leitch will say what the situation is on the ground, and comment on the fact that there are, in young people, slight differences in prevalence and outcomes of the virus.

Partly as a result of the question about transmission possibilities in schools that Ms Lennon has asked, and which has been repeated by me and many others, Public Health Scotland has done a study of five to 17-year-olds. Again—I am so sorry to say it—we cannot tell where people caught the virus; that is simply not possible. However, if there is infection in five to 17-year-olds, that is a risk group.

Public Health Scotland will publish that information later today. I am not going to tell you the numbers in that study, but the number in that age group who have positive tests is proportionally small, compared to the rest of the population, as we see around the world. For young people, the virus is harder to catch and harder to spread, and they do not get as sick. We know that for sure. That is particularly the case for the very young—for people in primary school. It is a bit more difficult for those who are 16 or 17 and whose bodies are a bit more adult-like, and who cough and splutter as an adult—if you will forgive the shorthand.

Infection among teachers and staff roughly follows community transmission; one would expect that in a call centre, a school, a university or wherever. Therefore, of course, there will be adults who could spread the virus to other adults, so we have to be very careful about that. That is why we have put in place in schools mitigations that are as strong as possible.

However, the advisers and decision makers are combined in the effort to keep schools and early years settings open as much as possible, because school is a public health intervention. It is good for children, from a public health perspective and a learning perspective, to be in school. We did not like having to advise schools to close in the first few months of the pandemic.

The data will be kept up to date and, of course, we will follow it. I expect that as transmission rises, cases in schools will increase, too. That is inevitable; cases will rise everywhere. However, the best way to get school transmission down is to get population transmission down. As the number of cases falls—which we hope level 4 will do for us—school prevalence will fall along with community prevalence.

I appreciate that you are saying that you cannot tell exactly where people catch the virus, but that means that we cannot fully rule out that it happens in schools, so there is a lot of public concern.

I have heard from both witnesses that compliance is high and that the public deserves praise for the sacrifices that it is making. Despite that, more than 2 million Scots are in level 4 protections or restrictions, or whatever way we want to look at that. What more needs to be done to get us out of the situation without completely wrecking the economy and without further harming people’s mental health at this time of year? In these dull, dark days, people are struggling. Do you want to do more on test and protect? Do you consider that we have not done enough on that?

I will start with what appears to be a truism but is a really important point. What is damaging the economy? What is damaging people’s mental health? I absolutely accept Monica Lennon’s point that the dark and wild days of November and December are very tough times, and it would be a foolish person who said that they were not affected by them, because everybody is. However, the virus is doing the damage, and it is the virus that we have to tackle. It is not the Government or the regulations but the virus that is the cause. Therefore all of us collectively have to take the necessary actions to suppress the virus, and, in time—we hope—to eliminate it. It is not an exact science—the First Minister has been very clear about that—but it is a process that is informed and driven by the work of clinicians and scientists, and judgment comes to bear at the final stage of making decisions.

The virus is what we have to defeat. That is the focus of our attention and what we are endeavouring to do. We are using the tools at our disposal with sensitivity. On every possible occasion—I think I have been before the committee 14 or 15 times—we are recognising the exceptional nature of what we are trying to do and being as accountable as we possibly can be for that. We are always questioning the actions that are being taken collectively and discussing them in that way as widely as possible. That is the task that we are engaged in and that we must follow through on—in the short term, in order to have a relaxation at Christmas and, in the longer term, in order to get us to the stage at which a vaccination programme will make the difference. Jason Leitch might want to give detail that is more scientific than that.

Actually, there is not a lot of science behind my answer. However, according to the World Health Organization, and to developed countries—I talk to many of them—the worst thing for the economy and for the mental health of a nation is not to control the virus. That is the doomsday scenario. If you allow the virus to get out of control, you damage the economy more and the mental health of the population more. The dilemma that the decision makers in France, Scotland and everywhere else face is that they have to reduce the direct harm from Covid while mitigating the other harms.

You have to get the prevalence down—even in Scotland, which now has the lowest prevalence of the four United Kingdom nations. The Scottish people have done well, but it is not a competition. It is a communal global effort to reduce the harm from the global pandemic and, at the same time, mitigate all the other elements—the economic harms, the societal harms, the mental health harms, the loneliness and the school issues. That is what makes the situation unprecedented: nobody has ever had to do that before. That is why it is so difficult, and that is why questioning such as this is absolutely appropriate, to get us to the right answers.

My first question is a quick one. For people who, as of this Friday, will be living in levels 3 and 4, will international travel be illegal?

International travel will not be illegal—it would require the UK Government to bring that about. However, travelling to an airport or a port for that purpose would be against the regulations.

Could people who live in Glasgow go to Glasgow airport to go on a non-essential international trip?

No—I do not believe that they could.

Right; okay—that is helpful.

My second question is about behaviour. I am keen to understand what the thinking is behind the Government’s approach. Yesterday, the First Minister indicated that many people are not adhering to the ban on indoor visiting. There is a line of thinking that supervised, regulated and organised environments such as pubs, cafes and restaurants are safer places than unregulated homes. Given that we have not managed to get the virus down to the levels that we wanted using the current restrictions, does such an argument now carry added weight? That is probably more a question for Professor Leitch.

Yes, I think that it is.

It is a good question, Mr Rennie. I can tell you that no country in the world has chosen to keep its hospitality venues open when its virus prevalence has risen. That is the position of the WHO and pretty much every Government in the world on cafes and restaurants. Even France, with its famous cafe culture, has shut such venues—and on curfews it has gone further than many other countries. In certain regions of Italy people cannot leave their homes without written evidence of their reason for doing so.

I think that people are still meeting in households here. Although some of them might be doing so safely, the rule is that they should not do it. That is very restrictive. I cannot think of a way of regulating or enforcing that further that would not take away hugely from people’s civil liberties, which none of us wants to do.

In order to get transmission down, we are therefore left with considering everywhere else that people can meet. Unfortunately, I do not think that having cafes and restaurants open means that people will not meet in their houses, and I think that our evidence now suggests that that is the case. Imposing level 3 restrictions has managed to get the numbers stable, but in the main it has not been done quickly enough to get the numbers down and stop deaths.

You do not support the argument that the situation is a pressure cooker and you believe that people, if they are desperate to have social engagement and to meet others, will find ways of doing so. Is there no weight to the argument that we should release such pressure through those who are trained and organised supervising their environments and controlling it? If we have been able to do that on construction and manufacturing sites, is there not an argument that pubs and restaurants are also capable of doing so?

Your argument is compelling, but construction and manufacturing involve tiny numbers compared with the 5 million people whom you suggest should be released to go to hospitality venues.

We have kind of done that already in any case. I previously came to the committee and said that the reason for our keeping cafes open was to prevent social isolation. Many people use cafes as community centres to meet their pals. I want all that to happen. Your argument is hugely compelling in saying that such people—for example, older people, single parents and those who have no work or other connection such that they do not otherwise meet people during the day—should be allowed to meet others in such a safe environment. However, that approach has not worked quickly enough, which is why—very reluctantly—this weekend, our advice was to move some areas to level 4.

We know that the lockdown on 23 March worked, in the sense that the prevalence of the virus fell. Of course, harms have resulted from that approach. We have touched on the business and economic harms, social isolation and loneliness. I am not dismissing those, nor am I immune to them. However, the reality is that we have too many infections and we must get those down.

Okay. My final set of questions are for the minister. There are two examples of businesses that are not receiving support when, in principle, they should. The first example is businesses that are required to close, such as nightclubs, which are not receiving the business closure support grant. Why is that?

The second example is businesses that are restricted in their activities by the new arrangements yet are not getting access to the hardship fund, such as holiday accommodation and bed and breakfasts. Why is the grant system not comprehensive enough to cover the businesses that, in principle, should get support?

09:30  

The grants system is comprehensive and wide ranging. However, anomalies will, of course, always develop in any system—Mr Rennie is, as I am, a constituency MSP and will know from his mail bag that that will occur. As constituency MSPs, I am sure that you and I will take up those issues both at local level, with local authorities that are distributing the money, and at national level, with Kate Forbes and Fiona Hyslop.

A system changes and develops. The announcements that the First Minister made yesterday about level 4 areas will come into effect as quick as possible, and that will widen the net.

I have two or three individuals in my constituency whom I believe should have received support and have not. I suspect that you, too, will have people like that. It will require continued persistence and work to try to develop and change the system to make that happen—that is one of the reasons that we are here and we are trying to do that. As MSPs, all of us should make representations, on the individual level and on the generic level, where we see that things are not working and we should try to get the system changed.

I want to pay tribute to the local authorities. They have done a remarkable job. I am not well known as a close friend of the local authority in my area, but I have been, and continue to be, unstinting in my praise for it and the work that it does.

It is incredibly difficult, and we must keep trying to work to ensure that as many people as possible are covered.

I have heard from Councillor Aileen Morton that you have been full of praise for Argyll and Bute Council. I am sure that it appreciates that. Perhaps you and I can join forces to persuade Kate Forbes to change the grant scheme.

Nothing is impossible, Mr Rennie.

I turn next to Willie Coffey.

This question is for Professor Leitch. I will turn the conversation to Ayrshire. As you can imagine, a number of constituents have been in touch to ask for an explanation as to why East Ayrshire has been moved up to level 4.

If we look at some of the data in the tables that were issued alongside the First Minister’s statement yesterday, we can see that East Ayrshire’s test positivity rates have been dropping steadily since the middle of October. One of the questions that I am being asked is why East Ayrshire is going to level 4 if that is the case.

One of the other tables in the data—this data was also published yesterday—predicts the probability of infection during the next two weeks in both East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire. The probability figures are lower for East Ayrshire than they are for North Ayrshire. I have been asked to offer explanations as to why East Ayrshire has been moved up to level 4, and I would be obliged if you could help to explain why that is the case.

I have the 32 local authority data charts with me, because I figured that one of the essential questions today might be about those. We have published the charts. They are a little bit tricky for people to find, and I think that it is important that we point people towards them as much as we can.

The charts do not give the whole picture. Therefore, before I describe East Ayrshire’s data in more detail, I will say that there is not a formula. You do not take this and that number and decide to put an area into level 4; it is not as easy as that. We have to question local authorities and directors of public health, and think about where people go to hospital and the geography of the area. We also have to think about the stability or otherwise of the data—are the numbers moving upwards, downwards, or are they stubbornly stable? Therefore, it is not just about the data.

However, let me take prevalence, which is probably the principal data point. We describe that as a seven-day average per hundred thousand people. That allows us to compare Liverpool with Nigeria with East Ayrshire. That is the same calculation around the whole world, so you can take the number of positive cases during a seven-day period and divide it by 100,000. The Scottish average is about 140; we want it to be below 50 across the whole country. About half of the country, inevitably, is above the Scottish average of 140 and, in the main, that is the group that we have moved to level 4, because those are the areas that are too high. Unfortunately, East Ayrshire falls into that group. In the past five days, on that data, East Ayrshire has been at 179, 180, 184, 179 and 165. It is stubbornly stable. The figure of 165 might be the beginning of a fall, but, unfortunately, there is no reliable data over time to suggest that.

East Ayrshire illustrates the challenge. We can see from the graphs that we published, that the line is absolutely straight in cases per hundred thousand and for test positivity in the past few days, unfortunately. The people of East Ayrshire have done a good job—they have done well—but, because of the proximity to the rest of the central belt and that stubborn data, we advised East Ayrshire to go up a level. Nobody, including me, wanted to do that.

I will take you up on that analysis. I am looking at the East Ayrshire test positivity chart. I suppose that it depends where you take your starting point—

Correct.

—to say whether the line is flat or whether it has gone down or up. I have chosen to look from the middle of October to now, and the overall trend is downwards for East Ayrshire, and you have chosen the past few days and said that it is flat. How do you pick which starting point to use in order to make the decision whether to be in level 3 or level 4?

It is a good question. You are right. Since the second peak—let us call it that—the numbers in East Ayrshire have fallen. I refer to the graph that we published. On 5 November, East Ayrshire had a positivity rate of 7 per cent. You need to remember that we want that rate to be lower than 5 per cent. The two WHO targets are 50 cases per 100,000 of population and a 5 per cent positivity rate.

Scotland’s overall positivity rate is about 7 per cent, which is too high. East Ayrshire has been, starting on 5 November, 7 per cent, and then 7.2 per cent, 7.4 per cent and 7.7 per cent for the following days. The rate was higher—I absolutely accept that—but, now, it is stuck at 7 per cent, along with much of the rest of the country. That is why we think that less interaction will bring it down. That is why, unfortunately, the decision was to move East Ayrshire to level 4.

I mentioned that the prediction for the next few weeks is that the rate will be lower in East Ayrshire than in North Ayrshire. How do you answer that point?

Again, that is about comparison of single data points. North Ayrshire has slightly better data across the board, as well as different geography, different advice from others, including from directors of public health, and different local on-the-ground outbreaks and so on. Therefore, in the round, the decision was that North Ayrshire only just scraped out of level 4, and that a very close watch will be kept on it. People were concerned about the nature of movement. You know that area better than me. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport knows that area well and was concerned about travel and movement around the Ayrshires. However, on balance, the decision was that, in the round, North Ayrshire should not move to level 4.

My last question, which is about the test and protect process, might be more for the cabinet secretary. Big retail stores, supermarkets and so on do not take contact details. Perhaps it is too impractical for them to do that. Some of them are already announcing that they are extending their opening hours. They do not manage the movement of the public in the stores in any meaningful way. I was in one last week that was absolutely chock-a-block with customers.

Surely that is a prime candidate for causing one of the major problems that we face. What can we do to enforce the proper management of the numbers of people being allowed into the stores and the proper management of people once they get inside? People are not part of the track and trace system when they go into bigger retail stores and supermarkets. Is any work being done to develop an app that can announce your arrival at those stores, so that you are part of that system?

You make a good point that we need constant vigilance about how social distancing is observed. We now have a legal requirement that people wear face coverings in shops, which needs to be observed. However—I think that the Deputy First Minister mentioned this the other day—we have recently intervened again to remind supermarket chains and others of the importance of managing crowds and groups of people shopping, particularly in two sets of circumstances: now, in level 4 areas, where there will be a limited number of places that where people can go; and, secondly, in the run-up to Christmas.

You make an important point. It is impractical to expect there to be a technological solution to that, but there is a simple solution, which is the one that applied from March onwards: rigorous observance of those requirements. We know more now; we have learned a great deal. Therefore, the requirements need to be observed by the people running the stores at every level.

I suspect that, as an MSP, you have had the same experience as me. When we have spoken to chains, we are told that it is a matter for the local manager, but the local manager says that the measure is not being enforced by headquarters. The reality is that the requirement must be enforced. That should happen.

You have drawn attention to the issue, and I am glad to have had the chance to respond to it. I hope that large and small chains and smaller shops are looking at this and saying, “We have got to do it properly.” There have been some imaginative approaches taken. Some small shops that I know have been very imaginative, rigorous, and they have done it well. That is what we should all be doing.

Good morning. I want to return to the question that I asked you at the last meeting about the black spots in Scotland where there is a lack of testing centres. I raised the issue of Perth at the last meeting, and I was very pleased that, within a couple of days, a testing centre was set up in Perth. How confident are you that we have the right testing centres on the ground in Scotland to meet the current objectives on testing?

I will allow Jason to answer that, as he works more closely on day-to-day testing. However, the health secretary has made it clear that the programme that is in place to expand testing in a variety of ways is moving forward with the full weight of her department and the Government behind it. That is how it will continue to be done. Nobody is complacent about that, and nobody is avoiding doing that. It is what we wish to do within the confines of human possibility, and it is what we are trying to do.

For example, I was involved in a discussion last week about a walk-in testing facility in my constituency and where the best location would be in an area of challenging geography. A range of actions are being taken as quickly as possible. Jason might want to say a word or two about what is happening on the ground and how testing is changing and developing. In her statement yesterday, the First Minister indicated the way in which things are progressing technologically.

I am glad that the challenge in Perth that you raised last time is at least partly resolved. I am as confident as I can be, which is relatively confident, about what we have seen with testing around the country. It gives me the opportunity to thank hundreds of people who now do this for a living—people who were working in our laboratories or in our health and social care system and a huge number of new employees who have come in to help us with testing, as well as the military and the logistics people who are doing this, both at UK Government level and at a Scottish level.

It has been an enormous human endeavour to get the testing centres set up. We now have fixed sites; mobile sites that we can move around the country, depending on where the numbers and the outbreaks are; and walk-in centres, principally but not only around student hot spots. Those are all going very well. The testing logistics is also going well in the laboratories.

09:45  

Of course, there are days when there are blips, because it is a massive human endeavour. Unfortunately, it comes at the same time as we are trying to vaccinate the population for flu and get ready for a Covid vaccine. The testing technology is changing, too. It is an absolutely massive effort.

Compared with other European countries, we are testing high numbers of the population, and we continue to have testing available for all symptomatic people; there is not a problem in getting an appointment. We are also increasing the number of asymptomatic tests that we are doing around the country for different hot spots, let us say, whether care homes or whatever group we might want to do next. Although the technology is not entirely as reliable as the polymerase chain reaction test, it is getting better.

Last night, I took part in the Tuesday night call involving the senior clinicians of the four UK countries—about 20 of us have been meeting every Tuesday and Thursday evening since the pandemic began—to discuss what to do with the next level of testing technology, which, again, will be a big logistical challenge. Some of that testing will be done in people’s homes and some will be done at testing sites.

I am confident that the process is going as well as it can.

I turn to the experience in schools. Cabinet secretary, you said that the normality of schooling is absolutely critical for children. I want to ask about the experience in our schools, in level 4 areas in particular.

For example, I am aware that, in Stirling, there is one school in which six classes are self-isolating at the moment. Entire classes are self-isolating, classroom teachers are off, learning support assistants for children with additional needs are off and supply teachers who do not necessarily know the classes are being brought in. Teachers are working extremely hard. You talk about the importance of the normality of the school experience, but is there not a case that there should be a shift to some form of blended learning for those schools in level 4 areas?

I hope that the phase that I used—I will certainly use it now, if I did not then—was that schooling should be “as close to normal as possible”. Of course, we are in the midst of the second stage of a pandemic, during which numbers have been rising very fast. There will be pressures on individual schools. Professor Leitch indicated that in the answer he gave earlier, and nobody would deny it. The Deputy First Minister has also indicated that there might well be circumstances in which, in some places, there have to be changes, even if they are short lived, in order to cope with those struggles.

However, I go back to my main point. There was unanimity across the Parliament that we should endeavour to get education back to as normal a situation as possible as soon as possible, and to maintain it there, as difficult as that might be in certain circumstances. I pay enormous tribute to parents, teachers and the school community. I am a former education secretary. Scottish education is strong and performs well, but people are being asked to go well beyond what any of us would have expected six or nine months or a year ago.

In those circumstances, keeping as close to normal as possible, recognising that when problems occur, they need urgent action, and attending to them is the right thing to do, and that is what is being done. Given the ability, strength and commitment of teachers and school communities, we should thank them and do our best to support them.

Jason might want to say something about the situation on the ground, but trying to maintain as normal an education as possible is a goal that is supported across the Parliament.

Rather than repeat the data that I gave earlier, which Public Health Scotland will issue later today, I might use narrative on this occasion.

I live with a North Lanarkshire teacher, and you can be absolutely certain that I hear teaching stories from North Lanarkshire and other areas. For decades, my wife was an English teacher and a pupil support teacher, but she now teaches English as an additional language. She teaches a young Syrian girl who was blown up in an explosion, with her sister, when she was in primary school in Syria. Scotland took her in and has now taught both those children for the past couple of years. I have seen images of that little girl beaming when she has pals around her, when she has support and when she has everything that schools provide around community care. The thought of removing that young girl’s education again in any meaningful way—not only the English teaching, which is a by-product of what the school provides for that young lady—is horrible.

I know that sometimes that will have to be done, as Mark Ruskell illustrated when he mentioned classes and teachers having to self-isolate, or even testing positive, with the result that some of that continuity is lost. However, my advice has consistently been that we should try to keep the schools open as much as we can, not only for that Syrian young lady but for all the population of Scotland.

I will ask a final question on the topic. The First Minister announced yesterday that children who were previously in the shielding category should not go to school. That is a clear category of children who are being advised not to attend school. However, teachers who were previously in a shielding category are still being advised to attend and be in that school environment. Is it fair or good practice to ask teachers in that position to continue to come in?

To be fair, that is not quite what we have said. We have spoken about children who were previously in the shielded group, which is a very small number, because we have adjusted the shielded group for children as we have learned more about the virus. There are therefore a small number of children in level 4 areas in relation to whom we think that the risk is high enough that we should keep them out of school for the period of the level 4 restrictions. That is a risk-adjusted and risk-based judgment that we think is appropriate.

We have said that all employees in level 4 areas—including teachers—should work from home if they can. If they cannot work from home, they should have a conversation with their employer—which might be their head teacher or the local authority; equally, it could be their call centre boss or the head of the Scottish Parliament—and, if mitigations can be put in place, they should be. We should remember that shielding is not binary; it is not no risk versus high risk. However, if a teacher is in the group of people who are very high risk, it could be that they could have a back-office job for three weeks or do some work from home on behalf of the rest of the teachers in their institution or whatever. We are not forcing anybody to go to work and put themselves at risk; we are suggesting that a conversation should take place with those in the high-risk group inside their workplace, whether that is the civil service, the Scottish Parliament or a high school.

It is more difficult to work from home if you are a teacher; again, my wife is one, so I completely understand that that might be a little bit tricky. However, the decision should be made at that local level. People can now do an individual risk assessment on mygov.scot that allows them to answer questions about their own risk. Because we have learned so much about the virus, we now know that obesity is a much bigger problem than we thought it was before. Although we have always known about age, we now know that heart failure and diabetes are a little bit more of a risk than we thought they were before, and the shielded group has been adjusted to allow for that.

We have a couple of supplementary questions; I ask members to be as quick as possible, please.

It does not seem to be working that way in practice, Professor Leitch. I have constituents in Fife who have had a blanket instruction to return to work and whose only route out of that is to sign off sick. Can I provide that information to you and your colleagues to see whether that policy can be looked at again?

Of course, Mr Rennie; I would be happy to do that. We are sending letters out today or tomorrow—we drafted them yesterday—to people who were previously in the shielded group to give them the instructions that I have just outlined, and we will of course share them with local authorities and headteachers. It will not be an exact science; it is tough for a headteacher who already has people off to juggle kids being off. I completely understand that, but let us try to make that as smooth as we can and reduce the risk as much as we can.

On the issue of children who are in the shielding group who are now being advised not to attend school in person if they are in a level 4 area, does that guidance also apply to siblings of those children who live in the same house?

No, it does not.

That is a helpful clarification. We turn to Annabelle Ewing.

I am sorry, convener, can I come in to make a point? Whoever is operating the microphones does not appear to have recognised my request.

I just want to make a point to Willie Rennie about the issue of those people who might be forced to go to work. There is a legal protection for people in those circumstances—that has been clear since the very beginning—but it is difficult for people to exercise it, because they are worried about their employment and their employment prospects. There is a place for representatives to be active in that and to make sure that they are active on behalf of individuals, but people should be in no doubt about the fact that there is a requirement for safe workplaces. That is an absolute right that people have, which is protected by law.

Thank you for that.

I have a few questions. First, as the MSP for the Cowdenbeath constituency, I am particularly interested in the position of Fife, and the formal agenda item requires us to look, inter alia, at Fife.

In relation to yesterday’s announcement about the 11 local authorities that will move to level 4 until 11 December, I assume that that means that the weekly review will continue as far as the other 21 local authorities are concerned and that, therefore, the possibility of movement up or down will continue to exist. Could I get clarification on that from the cabinet secretary or Professor Leitch?

Yes, that is the case. The reviews will continue; the First Minister made that clear in her statement yesterday, and there is no doubt about that.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that unequivocal clarification; I ask because people have been asking me.

Secondly, in relation to Fife, one of the issues that resulted in Fife going from level 2 the previous week to level 3 was a slight and worrying increase in the number of ICU beds being used. Could Professor Leitch confirm that that matter, which causes some anxiety for my constituents, is being monitored carefully?

Of course. The answer is yes. Intensive care works as one big system around the country; of course people go to their closest unit, but we need to have capacity in neighbouring health boards and around the country, and there is no intensive care on the islands, so we move people off when they need it. Intensive care provision has been expanded. We should remember that we already have more people in intensive care than at conventional times, so if someone is taken into intensive care, they are very seriously unwell. We have already had to move it to bigger numbers, and we are ready to move it again if we have to, which is why the horrible restrictions have had to be imposed.

I wish that I had printed the data sheets in slightly bigger type, but the forecast for intensive care numbers in Fife has risen in the past week, which is what we would expect—the restrictions that were put in a week ago will not have had any effect yet—so it looks worse in Fife this week than it did last week, but that is the nature of the virus, and the nature of the restrictions is such that we are always playing catch-up with the virus.

The prevalence in Fife has risen in the past week, but not to the extent that we thought that level 4 would be necessary, so Fife is now a high 3. As I said, the Scottish average is about 140 positive cases per 100,000 people; Fife is now just about on that margin, and we want it to be 50 everywhere.

10:00  

Thank you for the clarification. That will be a further worry to my constituents and other people in Fife, but perhaps it will be a carrot to reinforce the message about sticking to the rules.

In that regard, I have heard a number of queries—I am sure that all members have—such as, “Can I see somebody in a care home?”, “Can I visit somebody in a hospice?” and, “Can I go to visit my mother?” Helpfully, there is an exhaustive list of exceptions in regard to what will become, as of Friday, a travel ban in level 3 and 4 areas.

My plea to the cabinet secretary is to make the information about that more publicly accessible. I know that it is on the website, but the number of queries that members get—from, “Can I move from A to B?” to, “Can I be part of an extended household?”—suggests that it would be helpful for people to have a much clearer idea of what the exceptions are. Most people want to abide by the guidance and, from Friday, the law.

A clear list of exemptions will be published as part of the regulations. The exemptions—which already exist, plus one or two additions—will be laid out very clearly. I am absolutely in favour of having maximum clarity. However, in any set of circumstances, there will always be questions that require some thought, and there will always be interpretations about certain issues.

The list of exemptions on travel will be clear in the regulations. I commend it to every MSP. I keep it on my phone and computer, so that, when people ask me, I am absolutely clear what the exemptions are.

I appreciate that, as well as our job as MSPs, we have a job to do around disseminating that information. However, I still make my plea, because, in the main, people want to abide by the rules and they just want to know what they can do.

Guidance about Hallowe’en was published. Moving beyond Christmas—I have a longer focus—what about hogmanay? Will the cabinet secretary and Professor Leitch comment on where matters stand anent hogmanay?

Jason Leitch has been involved in the Christmas discussions more than I have, and I am sure that he will want to say something about that.

“Anent hogmanay”—two good Scots words together in the same sentence—there is a recognition that hogmanay is an important issue in Scotland, but there is also a recognition that the virus is a continuing threat.

Jason might wish to say something about the discussions that are taking place on the Christmas and new year season.

On a radio programme this morning, I was asked which week—Christmas or the new year—the Scottish population would choose, if we polled them and said that they could have only one. I am not quite sure what the answer would be, but I think that we would probably choose both.

There are conversations about Christmas and the new year taking place at the four-country level, and at two further levels: the clinical and official level—my level—and the political level, which are conversations between the First Minister, Michael Gove and others. We want to do that at the four-country level, but time is marching on and Christmas will be on us soon.

We would all like household mixing to be possible, and the prevalence rate is the crucial decider in that. We do not want people to have to do it surreptitiously or to break the rules in order to have some kind of safe Christmas, but we do want a safe Christmas and new year. It will not be normal—nobody thinks that it will be the same as 2019, or 2021, I hope. There will be differences, but we are keen that something will be allowable, and we will be clear about what that should be.

Other countries and other cities are struggling with the issue as well. The City of New York put out its Christmas guidance a couple of days ago on a big graphic sheet. The guidance is pretty good, but it is quite restrictive. We will look at that and at examples from other places, and we will make a judgment on what is safe based on the prevalence of cases here.

The last thing that we want is to have freedom and then to see increased infections and deaths in January among families that met at Christmas. That would be a horrible scenario to face.

Reducing prevalence now is the number 1 strategy for Christmas and the new year. Then we need to have guidance about what we think a safe Christmas and new year will look like.

That is helpful background information, because we have a session about Christmas and new year after this one.

My first question leads on from Annabelle Ewing’s question about the coming travel restrictions for areas in levels 3 and 4.

Things are very integrated in Dundee and Angus. That is not unique to here. People share leisure and shopping facilities. I have had a flurry of inquiries from people making the point that they would have to travel further within their own local authority to access those facilities than they would if they could go to a neighbouring authority. How does the idea of non-essential journeys apply to shopping and leisure? Will that be laid out clearly in the guidance? People have detailed questions about access to leisure and shopping.

We must be clear in the regulations that we will publish this week and in the communication that goes with those regulations. People are being told that they cannot travel outside their local authority area. Willie Rennie raised one example. People are being told that there are international travel restrictions and they are being advised against international travel. There will be quarantine for people coming into Scotland from a number of places.

There are always grey areas at the edges. There are some people who will wish to exploit that and there are some who are uncertain about what the regulations say.

We must be clear about what the exemptions are for travel, but we must also be clear about the intention. That is important. Jason Leitch and I have both strongly stated the intention here and the First Minister indicated it yesterday. We are doing this to tackle a situation in which the prevalence of the virus is not falling fast enough and because we are concerned that, if it does not fall fast enough, the national health service will be put under enormous and inevitable pressure that is difficult to deal with and that will result in loss of life.

We must sort this. We have not yet succeeded. As Jason Leitch has indicated, and as we all know, we have had some success, but we must get it sorted. That requires the far stronger regulations—although not as strong as those that we had during the lockdown in March—that will take effect this Friday.

People should understand the intention and should want to be part of that—as the majority of people do—for the limited period of time that the First Minister has committed herself to. That is important. I always learn from this committee that we must be clearer, and as clear as possible. I am learning that lesson again here today and I will make sure that, when we publish the travel recommendations, we will do all that we can to be clear.

The intention is the most important thing. If you are in doubt, do not do it. If you are in doubt, recognise the intention and ask yourself if that squares with what you want to do. That is important.

Thank you for that. A few questions are being raised about people who have been in a family bubble across different local authority areas. From Friday, are they still able to travel to be part of that family bubble, even if they are in a level 3 or 4 area?

One of the exemptions is for extended households; it is absolutely clear that extended households continue to operate. There is a set of regulations and guidance about extended households on the web and it is really important that people understand that information.

That is very helpful. Finally, I have a question for Jason Leitch about the figures. Dundee has been fluctuating; its rate has gone down by 29 per cent one week and up by 11 per cent the next. I presume that you are looking for the trend, because there will be those fluctuations. In order to come down from level 3 to level 2, I presume that Dundee would have to be consistently on a pattern, trend or trajectory across those figures. I know that you look at other issues as well but, sticking to the number of cases per 100,000 people, when you are making the judgment, would you be looking for that trend?

[Inaudible.]—the curve, statistically, to see whether it is continuing to fall and at the pace of the fall. If it falls over six months, that does not help us much; we want it to fall over, for example, a three or four-week period, because two incubation periods give us three to four weeks. That is where we are. I brought Dundee up because I saw you starting to speak and I am learning which area each MSP represents, although I know yours for historical reasons. Dundee has been pretty flat in the past few days and that needs to tip over and come down. It is at about the Scottish average. As I said, areas above the Scottish average have, in the main, been moved to level 4; those around and below the average have been maintained at their level; and those that are quite far below the average have been moved down a level. Midlothian and East Lothian have come down a level; therefore, it is possible for those numbers to fall and be consistently low, so that we can move down a level. However, Dundee City, having moved up, has stabilised and now needs to turn that corner.

Thank you.

Cabinet secretary, I will follow on from a point that Shona Robison made about shopping. I will talk about Helensburgh, so Jason Leitch might want to bring up his information on that. Helensburgh is at level 2, because it is in Argyll and Bute and, over the hill, Dumbarton is at level 4, because it is in West Dunbartonshire. I am constantly asked about travel for shopping, because, in Dumbarton, there is a big Morrisons store, a Lidl and an Aldi. Are people allowed to travel from a level 2 area to a level 4 area in order to do essential shopping?

I strongly advise against it. I want to go back and look at the exemptions; there would have to be an understanding of essential shopping. Helensburgh has shops, which remain open, and the opportunity exists for people to shop there, so I strongly advise against such travel. I will look at the exact wording of the essential travel exemptions and come back to you, to make sure that it is clarified for you and others, but my very strong advice—I cannot put it strongly enough—is that such travel is not a good idea.

It goes back to Mr Russell’s earlier point about what we are trying to do here and, unfortunately, we are not allowing shopping for social reasons. My father loves nothing more than a trip to the supermarket, but it is not to buy shopping, it is to chat to pals that he meets in the shop. Whatever level people are in, we are not allowing that, because we need to remove that human interaction in order to reduce the prevalence. If people can get their essential shopping in some other way, we would like them not to go out of their area. We would like them to get deliveries or get other people to bring their shopping. My father is no longer doing his shopping; my sister is doing his shopping and delivering it to his back door. However, it is a mindset and it is really difficult. Of course, we want people to get their essential shopping.

If they can get that delivered, they should. If they can do that locally, they should. I understand Ms Robison’s example, where one street might be in both Dundee City Council and Angus Council areas. If your local corner store is in a different local authority to you and it is 50 feet from your door and you need to go there for milk and bread, I do not think that anybody is going to stop you doing that. However, if I possibly could, I would avoid driving into the Dundee City Council area to go to Morrisons.

10:15  

That is fine; that is quite clear. Cabinet secretary, it would be useful to have that definition.

Under the regulations, at level 4, driving tests are out for the next three or four weeks. People who have taken their theory tests face a dilemma, because some theory tests will expire within the three-week lockdown period. Will the cabinet secretary consider an extension to the theory test, in the same way that MOT tests for vehicles have been extended by six months? It would give people a fair opportunity, because a few people have come to me and said that their theory tests are going to expire and that they cannot face sitting another one. We have got to get drivers through and there is a backlog of driving tests, which means that some people cannot get jobs because some jobs involve driving. Will the cabinet secretary look at that?

I am greatly sympathetic to that—it seems entirely sensible—but that is a reserved matter, so it is a matter for the UK Government.

Yes, but can you bring the matter up in your discussions with the other Governments and the UK Government, please?

I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity to raise that. I have raised the issue of driving tests on behalf of a constituent who had difficulty with that and needed a driving test to get a job. However, I just make the point—it is an important point—that not everything is within the gift of the Scottish Government. That is a matter that needs to be raised with the UK Government. I will ask the transport secretary to raise it, and I am sure that others will wish to raise it too.

My final question for the cabinet secretary and Jason Leitch is: what is the exact definition of an “extended household”?

It is on the website, Mr Corry. The definition of what an extended household is and how you form an extended household is very clear. I commend that information to you. I could go online and read it out, but it would be best that you look at it and read it. Jason Leitch wanted to say a word on that.

I do not want to read it out. Mr Russell is correct in what he says and, strictly speaking, you should read it, but, in simple terms, you can combine your household with somebody who lives alone or somebody who lives alone with children. Therefore, that becomes one household both for the purposes of test and protect and in that no distancing is required and you are able to gather together.

That is very clear, thank you. That is what I was looking for.

Finally, I will bring in Stuart McMillan.

Before I ask my question, I want to say thank you, because Inverclyde has stayed in level 3, rather than move up to level 4 with neighbouring authorities.

Cabinet Secretary, with 11 local authorities moving to level 4, what consideration has been given to student teachers, who might be on placements and travelling between areas with different levels of restrictions, particularly those who rely on public transport or who live in student accommodation?

It is a very good point. There is an exemption for work and for essential work. I would like to get that clarified as quickly as possible, and I undertake to ask John Swinney to do that for you and the committee very quickly indeed.

Thank you very much, cabinet secretary.

My second question is about supermarkets—an area that was touched on earlier by Willie Coffey. I was contacted last week by a constituent who works for a large supermarket in my constituency, and who raised concerns about the lack of health and safety measures being put in place by that particular store. They were concerned about their own health and the health of the patrons of that particular supermarket.

I think, cabinet secretary, that you mentioned earlier that dialogue and discussions continue between the Scottish Government and the retailers—in particular, the large retailers. As we are about to go into what could be seen as the most important time for any retailer, can that message be strengthened, please, so as to highlight to them how important it is that they do the right thing by their staff and by their customers?

It can be strengthened, and it can be amplified. Local members have a role, in that when they have—[Inaudible.]—to escalate that, both to Government and to stores and store management locally and nationally. It is a matter not of a single voice but of as many voices as possible.

However, I also go back to my point about the legal duty for a safe working environment. Employers have that legal duty. Trade unions also have a strong role to play in that matter, and I know that they are very active in making sure that those points are put across.

Thank you. I have certainly taken up the issue with that particular supermarket, but I also take the opportunity to raise it publicly this morning, bearing in mind that this is a parliamentary committee.

I thank all members and witnesses for that session.

---

Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/344)

---

Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/347)

The second agenda item is consideration of motions on the subordinate legislation that the committee took evidence on at its meeting on 4 November. The SSIs give effect to the Scottish Government’s new strategic framework for Covid-19, which came into effect on 2 November.

Cabinet secretary, do you wish to make any remarks on the SSIs?

No; I am happy just to move the motions.

Thank you. Are members content for motions S5M-23215 and S5M-23366 to be moved en bloc? If any member is not content, please type N in the chat bar now. Since no member has indicated otherwise, we are agreed to have the motions moved en bloc.

Motions moved,

That the COVID-19 Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/344) be approved.

That the COVID-19 Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/347) be approved.—[Michael Russell]

Motions agreed to.

The committee will, in the coming days, publish a report to the Parliament, setting out our decisions on the statutory instruments that have been considered at this meeting.

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 2, and our time with the cabinet secretary. I thank the cabinet secretary and Professor Leitch for their evidence. I will suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses. Members are advised that there is time for a short break of up to five minutes during the suspension.

10:24 Meeting suspended.  

10:41 On resuming—