Mesothelioma
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-3432, in the name of Bill Kidd, on action mesothelioma day.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament supports national Action Mesothelioma Day, which takes place on 27 February 2009, in recognition of people who have died and those who continue to suffer from mesothelioma; commends the work of Clydeside Action on Asbestos in providing an invaluable service to sufferers of mesothelioma, providing support for more than 80% of people affected in Scotland with representation in health, legal and financial matters, while contributing to public policy; notes the need to increase awareness and understanding of the illness and to identify the needs of people diagnosed and of their families and friends; recognises that many people who have developed mesothelioma have done so from going to work and contributing to the growth of the Scottish economy in a range of professions, including not only people employed in heavy industry and construction but also people employed in hospitals, teachers and lab technicians, and therefore recognises the continued need for research into the management and treatment of this condition.
It is an honour to bring this members' business debate to the Scottish Parliament. I welcome to the public gallery the delegation from Clydeside Action on Asbestos. Without them, my colleagues and I would not have been able to acquaint ourselves fully with the issues that are to be debated this evening.
The national mesothelioma action day takes place tomorrow. Its aim is to highlight this terrible disease, which is caused by exposure to asbestos, and to increase awareness of the condition, particularly among the medical profession.
Mesothelioma is only one of the conditions that are related to exposure to asbestos; others are asbestosis, lung cancer, diffuse pleural thickening and pleural plaque. Pleural plaque has been no stranger to debate in this chamber since the shameful House of Lords judgment removed the rights of sufferers to insured compensation. I am proud that we in the Scottish Parliament, with support from across the chamber, raised the rights of our fellow citizens above that shabby treatment and that the minister is piloting a bill that will soon reverse that state of affairs in Scotland. It is my genuine desire that similar sense will prevail in other parts of the United Kingdom and that sufferers will be able to access some degree of compensation for their condition.
Medical assessment of any respiratory problem necessitates taking a full history of any possible asbestos exposure. In the case of mesothelioma, it is important that the doctor asks specifically about the patient's occupation, all previous occupations and the occupations of their spouse and parents.
Mesothelioma is an insidious disease that can affect a huge range of individuals and their families through secondary exposure. There is no standard curative treatment for mesothelioma; it is a case of management options, which include surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and palliative care. Mesothelioma is not a clean, pain-free, Hollywood-style illness. Asbestos-related illnesses have not been sexy politics and they have been below the radar of all but those who suffer from them and their families. In the case of mesothelioma, an average of 165 cases a year end in death.
Clydeside Action on Asbestos has been to the forefront in respect of identification, support and campaigning on all aspects of asbestos-related illness. It provides expert advice on benefits and the pursuit of civil compensation and damages. We owe those people a great debt of gratitude for their dogged determination to ensure, with limited funding, that the victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses are neither forgotten nor forsaken.
I have a sheaf of letters of support for Clydeside Action on Asbestos from consultant specialists and cancer nurses throughout Scotland who know of the great work it does. The letters are from hospitals in every constituency in the country—all members should remember the great work done by Clydeside Action on Asbestos.
I also have a copy of the invaluable guide that Clydeside Action on Asbestos has produced to brief junior doctors on mesothelioma. On the back is a picture of the lung of a sufferer. It is not a pretty sight and anyone who tries to deny asbestos sufferers compensation should have it tattooed on their forehead. The guide is important—Clydeside Action on Asbestos has experienced a notable rise in inquiries, in line with the prediction of Professor Julian Peto at the London institute of cancer that the incidence of mesothelioma will continue to rise year-on-year until at least 2020.
National mesothelioma action day is a day of acknowledgement of all fellow Scots who, in the course of their working lives, contracted a foul disease while building a nation for us all. We owe them due recognition and support, and national mesothelioma action day is a due reward for the hard work that has been done on their behalf.
I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing the debate. I apologise to the chamber as I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate.
It is appropriate to recognise the work of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, as it has done an outstanding job over the years. I would also like to mention the Clydebank Asbestos Group, which along with Clydeside Action on Asbestos has driven the campaign for justice for asbestos sufferers and, in particular, for mesothelioma sufferers.
The campaign has been driven in a way that provides a model for other campaigning organisations. A sober, sensible and well-argued case has always been put forward on behalf of sufferers. The campaigners have a strong moral argument about the fact that people contracted mesothelioma in the workplace, but their argument has not rested purely on that moral dimension; they have provided worked-out statements on what was wrong with legislation and the financial arrangements that existed at particular points in time. They have also suggested solutions to the problem.
Both groups have been very well supported. The trade union movement—unions such as Unite, the GMB and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—has played an important role in campaigning and financing actions on behalf of individuals. The campaigns have also been ably supported by Thompsons Solicitors, which deals with about 90 per cent of the cases in Scotland. Frank Maguire in particular should be recognised for the role that he has played in providing legal advice to individuals and campaigners.
Many members of the Clydebank Asbestos Group have a strong industrial history in the shipyards. They came through those industrial struggles and they have drawn on that experience to continue the struggle over mesothelioma. They have first-hand experience of the causes of the condition, but they are also dealing with its consequences. We should pay particular tribute to those veterans of the trade union movement in the Clydebank Asbestos Group and Clydeside Action on Asbestos. Many of them have continued and widened a commitment that began with trying to help workmates or relatives.
It is also worth highlighting that this Parliament has a proud record in dealing with mesothelioma sufferers. As I remember, the Parliament's first debate on mesothelioma was on a motion lodged by Duncan McNeil, given his Greenock connections. I have certainly been heavily involved on behalf of people in Clydebank. Other members with a strong constituency interest, such as Bill Butler, have also been involved, but so have Scottish National Party members. Margaret Ewing was one of the first to offer her support and Stewart Stevenson has been an important supporter. In addition, Bill Aitken has constantly offered a sympathetic ear to mesothelioma sufferers, as has Robert Brown. We have had cross-party support for the campaign. I am pleased to see new members who entered the Parliament at the most recent election taking an interest in the issue and ensuring the continuity of the campaign.
Good campaigning from Scotland has also taken place in the Westminster Parliament. People such as John McFall—and Tony Worthington before him—have constantly been on the side of the asbestos sufferers. Such people have taken up issues such as the scandal with Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd and other matters connected with the insurance companies. The insurance industry has heard—and will continue to hear—plenty from Scottish representatives and Scottish campaigners.
The fact that asbestos cases are now fast-tracked through the Scottish courts, with a dedicated judge coming in to hear asbestos cases, is an important development in ensuring that cases are heard quickly.
The member should wind up.
The Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill, which we passed in the previous parliamentary session, has also been important.
However, the argument will continue. Let us continue to support the campaigners who have been constant in arguing for what is right. Let us hope that we can continue to support them.
I, too, congratulate Bill Kidd on lodging the motion. It is correct that we should debate such a motion, particularly on the eve of national action on mesothelioma day.
When I first became involved in the issue some six years ago, I did so through a profound feeling of injustice—the way in which cases were being defended in the Court of Session was really quite unconscionable. Delays and all sorts of impediments were put in the way of pursuers in a way that was totally inappropriate. Accordingly, I was pleased to be part of a fairly formidable team of members who made representations to the then Lord President to ensure that mesothelioma sufferers could see their actions concluded prior to their death.
Bill Kidd spoke about the condition, but he did not say what we all know: for mesothelioma sufferers, there is unlikely to be a happy outcome. It is a disease that is 100 per cent fatal. Death from mesothelioma is not pretty or easy. That being the case, the Parliament unanimously took the view that something had to be done, and we legislated accordingly in one of the Parliament's finer moments.
The motion—which, had it been debated under the normal rules of Parliament, would have passed unamended—gives us the opportunity to congratulate Clydeside Action on Asbestos on, and thank it for, the tremendous contribution that it has made in this particular field. Campaigners can, to be frank, sometimes be a nuisance for us parliamentarians. Clydeside Action on Asbestos has been a nuisance for a very good cause. I congratulate the group's members—I have enjoyed working with them and they have always put forward their case in a moderate and measured manner, which is not always the case in other directions. That has, in many respects, made it easy to support them.
An awful lot more work needs to be done—Bill Kidd's motion refers to it—with regard to treatment for and research into mesothelioma. It is always an evocative subject, bearing in mind the profile of Scottish industry, in which so many people have worked in shipyards and heavy engineering where asbestos was almost de rigueur in some of the processes that were used. Although a lot of those conditions were created as a result of ignorance of the dangers of asbestos at the time, others have been created by absolute negligence. It is imperative that people obtain a recovery in that respect.
I congratulate Clydeside Action on Asbestos—I have no doubt that it will carry on its work, spreading a lot of hope among the sufferers of mesothelioma in the unhappy event of individuals developing the condition. It can only be of great comfort to them to know that they have the backing of an organisation that has the respect of the Parliament. I wish the group all the best for the future.
I congratulate my colleague Bill Kidd MSP on securing this timely debate and I, too, welcome to the public gallery the delegation from Clydeside Action on Asbestos. During the current session of Parliament, members on all sides of the chamber have been working closely with Clydeside Action on Asbestos. Bill Kidd, Gil Paterson and I have worked with the group on a range of issues over the past 22 months.
The Parliament has a history of bringing justice to people who have been affected by asbestos-related conditions. Tomorrow is action mesothelioma day, which is a reminder to everyone in the chamber—and, more important, to those outside the chamber—of the industrial legacy that still affects many people and their families throughout Scotland. Action mesothelioma day is, of course, not taking place solely in Scotland—events are taking place in other nations in the UK, and I wish them success tomorrow.
We have heard what mesothelioma is, and I do not want to repeat what has been said, but it is important to reiterate that mesothelioma is a cancer that affects the lining of the lung, the lining of the abdominal cavity and the lining around the heart. Mesothelioma is not something that anyone would wish upon their worst enemy, never mind a work colleague. Thankfully, Parliament has a history of taking action to help the victims of mesothelioma, so we should give credit where it is due. Petition PE336 ultimately led to the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Act 2007, which the previous Scottish Executive introduced. That action shows that Parliament values victims of asbestos-related illnesses and is prepared to act accordingly. I would very much like other places to consider the issue fully, to act accordingly and to give credit where it is due.
As we know, asbestos-related conditions are varied and mesothelioma is just one example of such a condition. With the support of members of all parties, the Scottish Government is taking action on the Clydeside Action on Asbestos campaign to provide justice for victims of pleural plaques. The Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill will be considered at stage 3 on 11 March, and I hope that the cross-party support for the bill continues.
I am grateful for the Government's response to the Justice Committee's request for further information on the financial estimates relating to the bill and its expression of concern about the statement of funding issue. I will read the response with a keen eye over the next few days.
It is clear that victims must get justice. On 7 November 2007, I led a members' business debate on the back of the shameful House of Lords ruling that overturned the previous position, whereby victims of pleural plaques had been entitled to justice. Like all MSPs, I was disappointed by that ruling but, thankfully in Scotland at least, we are on the cusp of overturning it. I am sure that if the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill is passed, the pressure on the Westminster Parliament to overturn the decision by the House of Lords, so that victims in other nations of the UK can get justice, will increase. All sufferers deserve justice.
An aspect of the continual campaign for justice that disappoints me is the insurance industry's apparent reluctance to work in tandem with groups such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which would allow victims to obtain speedy outcomes. I fully accept that the insurance industry cannot hand out money on a whim—no member would expect that to happen—but I am convinced that its practice of continually fighting cases and lodging appeals, thus delaying payments to victims, leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I respectfully suggest that the insurance industry should take a different approach and try to work with organisations such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos instead of fighting claims at every turn.
People with asbestos-related conditions did not ask to have the illness. They went to work and did a hard day's honest graft. They do not deserve to suffer the ill health that has befallen them. Groups such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos are invaluable in providing assistance, and action mesothelioma day is vital in keeping in the public eye the industrial legacy that has affected many people in our society. I again congratulate Bill Kidd on securing such a timely debate and on helping to keep asbestos-related illnesses in the public eye.
I congratulate my colleague Bill Kidd on securing this evening's members' business debate on an issue that is of real importance to the people of Scotland. Mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses affect the lives of hundreds of families across this nation and across the UK. It is vital to have such debates, in which we can discuss the needs of victims and their families.
I should add that I intend to be present, along with a number of colleagues from all parties, at the memorial service that will be held tomorrow in the office of Clydeside Action on Asbestos.
Clydeside Action on Asbestos provides advice, information and practical help to victims who have asbestos-related diseases; indeed, it provides invaluable assistance to more than 80 per cent of mesothelioma sufferers in Scotland. I want to put on the parliamentary record my appreciation of the sterling work of the staff and volunteers at Clydeside Action on Asbestos. They deserve our unending thanks.
There is an indisputable need for the organisations that work in this field and the essential support that they provide. As parliamentarians, we must use opportunities such as this evening's debate to help raise public awareness of the illness and thus encourage victims and families to seek support and assistance.
As Phyllis Craig, who is a senior welfare rights officer at Clydeside Action on Asbestos, says:
"It is important to raise public awareness of this illness and improve understanding of the effect a diagnosis has."
The trauma and disbelief that inevitably accompany such a diagnosis cannot possibly be exaggerated. Some victims may have had only limited exposure to asbestos, which may have occurred 40 years previously. The shock must be beyond belief, and the difficulty of coming to terms with such devastating news must be enormous. Allied to that is a very real fear about what the future holds as regards management of the condition, the implications of having to stop working and the reality of facing a limited lifespan.
It is worth noting that such trauma is experienced by more than 2,000 people in the UK each year who are found to have the disease, of whom approximately 10 to 15 per cent are women. Given those statistics, Mr Frank Maguire of Thompsons Solicitors is correct when he reminds us all that victims and their families
"not only have to come to terms with the diagnosis and life expectancy, but also the issues of negligence, liability and justice."
Action mesothelioma day also gives us an opportunity to remember those who have died, those who continue to be diagnosed with the disease and those who continue to be exposed to asbestos even today. As legislators, we must never forget who those victims are. They are our fellow citizens who spent their working lives in shipbuilding, the construction industry and the fishing industry. They are the retired Rosyth dockyard worker who was exposed to asbestos with no protection of any kind over a period of two and a half years in the late 1950s, and the retired pipe fitter from Leith who was never told of the dangers of asbestos and was forced into retirement at the age of 53. Those are the real victims—real people, real lives affected, real lives blighted. They are our friends and neighbours, and we must never forget their suffering or that of their families.
Our task here is to pass laws that seek to redress the gross injustice that those people have suffered. As members have said, this Parliament has a good record in passing such legislation. I hope that that tradition continues on Wednesday 11 March and that we pass unanimously the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, thus reversing the scandalous judgment of the House of Lords regarding pleural plaques that was made on 17 October 2007. It will certainly have the support of all the millions of people throughout Scotland and the UK who place the rights of working people above the interests of those whose only god is profit.
I, too, congratulate Bill Kidd on obtaining the debate and on his motion on action mesothelioma day. Like him, I will attend the event tomorrow that has been organised by Clydeside Action on Asbestos. It is to be one of a number of events of the same kind throughout the UK. I have known people who have died from mesothelioma and I pursued a number of legal claims on the issue in my time in legal practice. As Bill Butler rightly says, we are dealing with real people, real lives, real families and real communities.
The toll of death and disablement that has resulted from Scotland's and Britain's industrial past is heavy, not just in respect of exposure to asbestos, which is the subject of today's debate, but in terms of the consequences of people working in the mines, the shipyards, the steelworks, the pottery industries and many more. However, it is a particularly grim record for those who worked with asbestos, both because of the long lead-up period to the consequences—often 30 or 40 years—and because of the serious and unpleasant nature of the illnesses that are sustained, mesothelioma and lung cancer in particular.
Several quite famous people have died from mesothelioma. Steve McQueen, the actor, died of the disease probably as a result of his exposure to asbestos when he served in the marines during the war. More recently, the Glenrothes by-election was triggered by the death of John MacDougall MP from the disease.
As has been remarked before, exposure to asbestos fibres affects whole families and whole communities. It affects brothers who worked together in the shipyard, lagging engines or pipes; fathers and sons who worked together in the engineering and construction industries; the wives who washed their husbands' overalls, which were white with asbestos dust; and whole streets and districts that had a common major employer. Somehow, that shared misfortune can make asbestos-related diseases particularly tragic, and the incidence of the disease may not reach its peak until as late as 2020 or even 2025.
Clydeside Action on Asbestos has been a beacon of sympathy and support for mesothelioma sufferers. It has campaigned for information about and understanding of the problem, for changes in the law and for the rights of people who suffer from the disease. It is probably one of the most successful single-issue groups in the country, and we are very grateful for its work over the years.
Mesothelioma and asbestos-related ailments have been one of the prices that have been paid for the development of our economy, the defence of the realm and the vast expansion in the number of public and private buildings that has transformed the landscape of our country. However, it is a price that has been paid on behalf of the many by the few. We owe it to those who have suffered or died from mesothelioma to continue to research how best to tackle it, to manage and to treat it and to provide support in financial and other ways.
Even today, it is said that 20 tradespeople a week die from asbestos-related conditions. These issues are not just history; they are a present and future reality for many people.
I thank Bill Kidd for securing tonight's debate. In the Parliament, we can find many issues that separate parties and members and generate publicity and controversy, but to no good end. However, when it comes to issues such as the damage that is caused by asbestos, the Parliament comes into its own.
The debate was not originally set for tonight. However, when the significance of the date was brought to the attention of my good friend here, Joe FitzPatrick, who had a members' business debate scheduled for tonight, he instantly agreed to make way for it. I thank Joe very much for that, and I am sure that everybody else appreciates it too.
Since the establishment of the Parliament, the quiet but effective work done on asbestos-related health issues, such as mesothelioma, has been legend. The Parliament has been solid in its commitment to right the wrongs of the past in cases where asbestos victims have been treated badly. None of that would be seen on CNN, but our press corps here has well understood the significance of our work and has assisted greatly in bringing these issues to the attention of the wider public. In turn, that has garnered the support needed for change.
The Government has been running a publicity campaign that is aimed at innocent workers, who are being alerted to the ever-present hidden dangers of asbestos in the workplace. Those people work in all sorts of activities, but mainly in trades that are engaged in renewals and repairs. They are carrying out everyday work, unaware of the potential killer under the next plank or above the next ceiling. I fully support prevention and believe that the campaign is money well spent.
We should be aware that people contract asbestos-related diseases in the most seemingly secure places. I am thinking of people such as teachers who have never set foot on an industrial site in their lives but who are at risk because of working in buildings that were built with asbestos, and who then contract an illness. Such people need our help and they need the support of organisations such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos and the Clydebank Asbestos Group. Both those groups have been in the vanguard of the fight for recognition, compensation and so much more.
The job is not yet done. A bill on pleural plaques, which are a consequence of inhaling asbestos, is progressing through the Parliament. Yet again, there has been support from all quarters of the chamber. Concern continues for those who need our help. Presiding Officer, let us mark this day with a pledge to see the job done.
I thank Bill Kidd for lodging the motion on action mesothelioma day, and I welcome the compassionate and consensual tone and manner of the debate. The Scottish Government is very pleased to be able to support the motion.
We have already heard that mesothelioma is a terrible disease. It is a rare form of cancer that attacks the inner lining of internal organs. As Bill Aitken said, it is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos. It takes, on average, 20 years to develop. However, as many members have said, sufferers often die within just a few months of diagnosis. There is no known cure for the disease, and victims spend their final months in considerable pain and suffering.
It goes without saying that, particularly when there is no cure, prevention is the best policy. I am pleased that much has been done to control the risks from asbestos. The use, supply and importation of asbestos and asbestos products have been banned, with only a few exceptions. Work with asbestos generally requires a licence and the use of strict control measures, including personal protective equipment such as respirators.
As has been mentioned, the Health and Safety Executive has been running a campaign called "Asbestos—the hidden killer" to raise awareness among tradesmen and tradeswomen that they are at risk from exposure to asbestos. Launching that campaign at Hampden Park last October, Jim Murphy, the Secretary of State for Scotland, said:
"The occupational safety of workers throughout Scotland is a major priority for us all".
I am happy to endorse that view.
However, as we heard from members throughout the chamber this evening, this devastating problem will not go away quickly. The long latency period means that, sadly, despite far better controls on exposure to asbestos and the elimination of asbestos imports, the rate is still rising. Generally, only about one in 10 of those who are diagnosed with mesothelioma will be alive three years later and only one in 20 will be alive five years later. The latest information from the Health and Safety Executive shows that the total number of mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2006 was 2,056. I think that Bill Butler alluded to that. The latest projections suggest that the annual number of mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain will peak somewhere between current levels and 2,450 deaths a year some time before 2015. That is a shocking and appalling toll of death in the UK.
No useful test is currently available that would detect people who have been exposed to asbestos and are likely to get mesothelioma. Unfortunately, mesothelioma can be difficult if not impossible to treat. Nearly all treatment is aimed at controlling the disease for as long as possible and keeping symptoms under control. However, as Bill Kidd mentioned, doctors and researchers are working all the time to improve treatment. Obviously, we all encourage clinicians to ensure that as many patients as possible are included in the relevant clinical trials.
There are debates about drugs such as Alimta. Arrangements are in place in Scotland for the assessment of new drugs and treatments through bodies such as the Scottish Medicines Consortium and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. Those bodies operate independently of the Scottish Government and are widely acknowledged to be robust. I understand that NHS QIS considered the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence appraisal and has advised that its positive recommendation for Alimta is as valid for Scotland as it is for England and Wales.
As many members said, a great deal of good work has been done to ensure that there are appropriate rights to compensation. The fact that that work has not been easy is exemplified by the fact that it has taken so many years for so many of the problems to be solved. I pay tribute to the work of members throughout the Parliament, notably Bill Butler, who this evening made a typically eloquent and impassioned plea for justice to be done for all those who suffer from diseases that are caused by exposure to asbestos.
The good work to ensure that there are appropriate rights to compensation has been supported in the Parliament in a great number of respects. The amendments to the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 enabled the families of sufferers to make claims, thereby removing the dilemma that existed hitherto. Previously, the sufferer himself, while coping with the horrific symptoms of the disease in his last days, also had to cope with consulting a lawyer and all the stress and difficulty that that involved for him and his family. That was dealt with. In addition, action was taken in the legal system. The Coulsfield rules were brought in to ensure that claims were dealt with more swiftly than in normal cases.
Robert Brown mentioned in his less impassioned but nonetheless equally effective presentation of the arguments—it was, if I may say so, rather like the closing submission in a civil proof—some of the action that has rightly been taken across the Parliaments and countries of the UK. There has been co-operation between the Parliaments. For example, the Scottish Parliament used a legislative consent motion to allow the Compensation Bill at Westminster to tackle the problems that arose from the case of Barker v Corus. We were happy to co-operate with Westminster on that, and we remain happy to co-operate with Westminster in tackling the issues surrounding exposure to asbestos.
I was pleased that many members indicated their continuing support for the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, which we hope to pass shortly. As a Scot, I hope that everyone in the UK who suffers from pleural plaques as a result of exposure to asbestos through their employers' negligence will have the opportunity to obtain compensation. We will seek to ensure that the bill is passed in Scotland, but we very much hope that the Parliament in Westminster will also take the same or a similar approach in the interests of people throughout the UK who suffer from ill health as a result of the accident of the work that they devoted their lives to. That is the position of the Government.
I acknowledge the important contribution that has been made by campaigning groups such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos and Asbestos Action (Tayside). Those groups have been mentioned by many members. Bill Aitken said that one of them became a nuisance. I am sure that, if it was a nuisance, it was a pleasant form of nuisance—not unlike Bill Aitken himself, on occasion. It is the persistence, commitment and dogged determination of those groups that has brought this issue to the Scottish Parliament and Westminster time and again, year in, year out. I congratulate them.
Although there are occasions on which the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament do not see eye to eye, this is not one of them. On this issue, we speak with one voice.
Meeting closed at 17:42.