[upbeat instrumental music] ♪ ♪ Hello, and welcome
to today's course on ethics consultation. In this first of two parts, we'll be exploring the need
for procedural consistency in your ethics case
consultation process. Ethics consultation is one
of the three core functions of IntegratedEthics. The other two functions, ethical leadership
and preventive ethics, are covered by other videos
in this series. Before we go any further, be sure you have
your work sheets handy. You'll need them
for the activities later on in the video. You know, most VA facilities
are committed to improving their mechanisms for handling
health care ethics. Today's complex
health care environment calls for a more systemic
and pervasive approach. But transitioning
from an ethics committee model to an IntegratedEthics program
can be challenging. And that's
where the IntegratedEthics coaches come in. (male narrator)
The IntegratedEthics coaches, three makeover specialists
determined to help facilities transform their traditional
ethics committees into IntegratedEthics programs. Frank, the Analytic Ace, with years
of clinical experience and ethics expertise; Danielle,
the Communications Connoisseur, with a background in ethics-related
customer service; and Scot,
the Process Pro, with an eye
towards streamlining work processes
and procedures.

The IntegratedEthics coaches, ready to help you make sure
your core functions are functioning. In today's episode,
the IntegratedEthics coaches will be working
with Prospect VAMC, a typical VA medical center
in Anytown, U.S.A. This is Dr. Mike Burrows,
head of the cancer center over at Prospect VA
Medical Center. He's also chair
of their ethics committee and has been
for the last eight years. We'll be sitting down
this morning with Dr. Burrows and some other members
of his group. So these folks have been at it
for a while. Seems like they would have
a pretty good handle on where their program
is going. Maybe, Danielle,
but I understand they're still struggling
with how to incorporate an IntegratedEthics
approach. Yeah, and plus,
they all have other jobs and responsibilities
at the hospital. I mean, these
are some busy, busy bees. At least that's
the buzz I hear. So who else
are we seeing today, Frank? This is Maria Ruiz.

She's a nurse specialist
for geriatrics and has been
an ethics consultant for the last two years. Bzzzz. And finally, Tina Whitley; she's a licensed
clinical social worker, who works primarily
in surgery. She's also a founding member
of Prospect's ethics committee. So she's been around
the hive for a while. Why don't you buzz off? Ouch. That really stings. Okay, okay,
our job right now is to help these seasoned
ethics consultants improve and enhance
their consultation process.

All right, folks. We'd better get moving. Time to make the honey. You should comb
your hair. You're so sweet. [piano playing
Flight of the Bumblebee] ♪ ♪ Our files indicate
that your ethics program has been around
for a while. (Burrows)
It sure has. I myself have been involved
in the committee for, oh, it's got to be
at least 14 years, the last eight as chair. (Scot)
So are you three the core team
for ethics consultation? Well, that's one of the things
we're trying to figure out. We know that not everyone
on the ethics committee has the proficiency required
for ethics consultation. But at the same time,
we feel that we might need more than just
the three of us. As far as what
the ideal size team would be, there is no simple answer.

No standard formula;
every facility is different. [imitating Groucho Marx]
Take one clinician,
one nurse, one clergyman, stir in medium-size conference
room, season to taste, voilà, instant ethics
consult team. [normally]
No, I don't think so. But I will say this: I think you guys
are in pretty good shape. I mean, you have a nice mix
of backgrounds and skills– What? I can say nice things
sometimes. Oh, and me
without my tape recorder. Okay. Presenting, for your edification
and enlightenment, the knowledge, skills,
and traits necessary for a top-notch ethics
consultation in the center ring.

We have the knowledge;
knowledge is power. You got to have knowledge. If you don't got it,
you got to know where to get it. You got to know your ethics. So what do you got to have? Anyone, someone,
tell me something– this is the part where you
respond back. Yes, you, little lady, front
row, something on your mind? Hm? Oh, oh, how about
clinical literacy? You know, understanding
of medical jargon? Ding ding ding ding, Nurse Ruiz takes an early lead
with 50 points. W-what do you mean,
points? Go away, kid,
you're bothering me.

Look, anyone else
want to try to ring the bell? Of course,
you need to be familiar with a broad range
of ethics topics– informed consent,
conflicts of interest, life-sustaining
treatment, and so on. Oh ho ho ho, Dr. B roars
into the lead with 100 points. How come he got 100? (Whitley)
There's a long list of things you need to know about. It's all in the ethics
consultation primer. (Scot)
Oh, and Ms. Whitley out of nowhere
roars into the lead. She's right, folks. It's in the primer. You should've all read
the primer by now? Okay, now, you may
be asking yourself, "Is it worth all this effort
for that knowledge?" Well, let me tell you, neighbors and friends,
ladies and gentlemen, it's an effort
that pays you back. Because
without this knowledge, it will turn a seemingly
"normal" consultation into the kind of monster
that could ruin you, your patient,
and your whole program. (Ruiz)
Um, is it always like this
around you guys? Ah, the fun never stops.

Ha-cha-cha-cha. I think we all take the need
for ethics knowledge seriously. But it's not as simple as
just checking it off some list. You can't just go
to the knowledge mart and pick up two bags
of bioethics concepts. I like you. Developing your ethics knowledge
is a never-ending pursuit. You need to continually
re-educate yourself– attend conferences,
read journals. And don't forget
that ethics expertise is about more
than just knowledge. You also need to develop
certain skills. Analytical skills. Communication skills. The ability to facilitate
and foster dialogue. (Danielle)
The ability to identify
ethically justifiable options. (Scot)
Critical thinking. Listening well. And consensus
building. The skills you need
are all outlined in the primer along with the traits that
make these skills achievable. (Danielle)
Like patience. And tolerance. And humility. She's got loads
to be humble about.

(Frank)
We'll be moving on in just a moment. I'd like you folks
to show us around the facility a bit,
if you don't mind. But first,
we always have to ask, what would you say
is the single largest obstacle between
your current situation and a first-rate
ethics consultation service? Staffing. Manpower. Time. Our administration is very
supportive of the idea of ethics consultation. (Burrows)
But in actual practice, it tends to be treated
more like a collateral duty than a primary function. It's something
we have to make time for. (Frank)
I hope that's all
going to change soon. It's one of the things
we address in our session
on ethical leadership. In the meantime, there
may be some things you can do. How has your supervisor
handled the situation of having to "make time"? Well, I haven't really
pushed it. I mean, I've said
generic things like, "Wow, the consultation
service seems busy." But it doesn't seem like
she's gotten the hint. This is Jeanne Yancy
you're talking about.

I know you probably
already know this, but for the record,
hinting isn't the same thing
as communicating. I know, it's just that
I don't want to seem– (Scot)
You just don't want
to complain. Oh, I love this woman. Oh, please, please,
can I take this one? Look, look, I can fix it;
I'll be very persuasive. Scot– I'll be good;
I'll be good. Jeanne Yancy, you said? Yes. Up, up, and away! [trumpet fanfare] It's going
to be interesting. Maybe you could
show us around. Certainly. (Frank)
One of the first things
I'd like to address is access to your
consultation service. It's important for staff,
patients, and families to know what the ethics consultation
service is there for. Excuse me. If you had
an ethics question related to one
of your patients, what would you do? The patient number
for ethics consultation is right there
on the board.

It is;
look. "Have an ethics
question?" Page the beeper. (Danielle)
That's great. Let me try something else. Oh, excuse me. Can you tell us
when it's appropriate to request
a ethics consultation? Sure, it's basically anytime
you have uncertainty or conflict about
the right thing to do. We get literature
on it every year. Plus, I think
there's something about it in the employee orientation,
if you remember. If you have any questions,
just contact your supervisor, or else call the ethics
consult service. Excuse me, please. I got to start working out. Well, it certainly seems your service
is well-publicized. Are the patients as aware
of all this as the staff? They get a brochure
about our service when they're admitted.

And that same brochure
is available in most of the reading rooms
and at every nurse's station. And there's an ethics link
on Prospect's home page. You guys are good. I wonder what's
going on upstairs. I'm on my way
to talk with Jeanne Yancy and find out why poor Maria Ruiz
doesn't feel like her work on ethics consultation
is valued. And since this is a federal
government job, I'm going to go into G-man mode
just for a minute. It's going to be
real Joe Friday type stuff.

Jeanne Yancy? Yes. Ms. Yancy, I'm here
in an official capacity, and it's imperative
that I talk with you. I don't– It'll save
a lot of troubles later on if you just
follow me, please, ma'am. You know,
I really don't– [whispering]
Is she following me? Oh, thank goodness. Sir, you could
wait a moment, please? It'll only be a minute,
ma'am.

Sir, I really–
what is your name? You can call me Scot. And I need to know
why you're here, Scot. I'm doing a friend a favor. And actually, I'm doing you
a favor too, in the long run. Now, do you recognize
this desk? (Yancy)
Of course I do;
it's Maria's, Nurse Ruiz. That's very good;
now, tell me what you see. I don't understand
what you're asking. And I am going
to have to ask– I'll tell you what I see. I see files that need
to be filed; I see– [sniffs] Beef surprise. I see stacks and stacks
of policies, and–what am I missing? I'm missing something;
what am I– Ah, patients.

Nurse Ruiz provides care,
doesn't she? Of course she does. Now, will you really– You look fabulous,
by the way. Can I ask you something? Do you think
this hospital values the work
that Nurse Ruiz does on the ethics
consultation service? We value that work
as highly as we do all the other aspects
of patient care. Then why aren't
her ethics responsibilities made explicit
in her performance plan? I really
haven't considered. Couldn't you buy her
a little more time if you took off
the nursing policy committee? I guess. You see,
here's the thing. Nurse Ruiz, she doesn't
want to complain or anything. So she's never told you how overwhelming
all this stuff is. And, believe me,
we're going to be teaching her how to speak up
and how to express her concerns, because we know
it's not fair to you to turn into a mind reader
or anything. But in the meantime,
anything you can do to let her know that you value
her ethics responsibility, that you want her
to have the time to do it, would be
absolutely terrific.

Don't you think? I guess. You are just too great. I am serious;
she's gonna be thrilled. Don't be a stranger. (Frank)
May I ask what happens
when someone pages the ethics
consultation service? (Burrows)
Well, that all depends. On what? Well, for one thing,
it depends on who's wearing the pager
that day. Ahh, it depends. (Danielle)
Exactly. It's not that complicated. I get the page,
I call the other two, and we get
to the bedside ASAP. I try to get a little
preliminary information from the caller first, or I might review
the patient's history myself before I call
the other two. (Burrows)
Exactly; it depends
on circumstances. Sometimes I'll see
the patient first myself to see what's what,
but I mean, it depends
on how much time I have.

[coughing]
Problem. I beg your pardon? (Danielle)
You need to be consistent with your
initial response. And the first step
of that response should be to clarify
the consultation request so that you can
come up with your game plan, including which members
of the team that you want to involve. Based on the complexity
of the case, the subject matter,
the nature of the request, not on how much time you
happen to have at that moment. No matter which one of you
gets the page, this needs to be
your initial step.

What we're saying is, for ethics consultation
to work best, you have to have
procedural consistency. Both you
and the people you serve have to know exactly
what to expect at every phase. [beeping] Uh, Jill Ingersoll
just sent me a page. She has
an ethics question. You mind
if I step out a minute? Actually, why don't you call her
on the speakerphone? That way, we'll
be able to follow along and talk about it later. All right. Extension 321. [phone rings] Jill Ingersoll. Hi, Jill, this is Mike Burrows
returning your page. Your call came
at a really good time. We have the whole
consult team here doing a little training. I have you on the speakerphone;
is that okay? Sure. (Burrows)
What's going on? I've got this patient
with a living will that says he doesn't want
his life prolonged.

It also names his wife as
the durable power of attorney. She thinks
it's too early to give up and wants to do everything. I want to honor
the patient's wishes and remove
the feeding tube. I can do that, right? Well, it sounds
a little too complicated to give a quick
yes-no answer. Can you back up a minute and give me some more
specifics on the case? Sure, the patient
is Everett Johnson; he's 75. He's had multiple strokes,
and he has a feeding tube. He has grade 4 pressure ulcers
and chronic osteomyelitis that has not responded
to antibiotics. He's been in and out
of ICU with sepsis and has been on the ventilator
several times for his COPD. We've been trying
to get him stabilized long enough to move him
into a nursing home, but it's been one thing
after another. His wife says do everything, so that's
what we've been doing.

And then yesterday
out of the blue, his sister shows up
with this living will that says he doesn't want
to be tube fed. And it also names his wife as the durable power
of attorney for health care. And it says specifically that his wife
needs to follow his wishes as stated
in the living will. So I think
it's pretty straightforward. It sounds pretty
straightforward, but let's clear up
a couple of things just so we know for sure
what we're dealing with. Shoot. Is it a VA living will? Yes, it's our
standard form. And the power of attorney
is our form too? Yes.

Signature's there
and everything? Absolutely;
two witnesses, everything seems right
by the book. And it says specifically that
he doesn't want a feeding tube? No life-sustaining
procedures of any kind. Okay, next,
what is the patient's prognosis? Really poor; he's been going
steadily downhill. The way things are going,
I seriously doubt he'll survive
another trip to the ICU. Why does he have
a feeding tube? Is he eating
anything at all? No, he's NPO;
recurrent aspiration pneumonia.

Practically
everything he eats goes straight
to his lungs. So there's no way
he could be fed orally? No way. And you're sure he lacks
decision-making capacity? He doesn't talk at all. Well, can he communicate
nonverbally? Intermittently. He's pretty out of it
most of the time. Has he had a formal assessment
of decision-making capacity? I think so. I'll check. You should be sure that that's adequately documented
in the chart, especially if you're thinking
of withdrawing the life-sustaining
treatment. Good point;
you're right. I'll do that. Okay, let me summarize here by formulating
the ethics question. Should you remove
the feeding tube over the objections
of the surrogate based on the patient's
clear advance directive? That's exactly
my problem. Now, what about the wife? Have you talked
to her about this? Not yet; I thought
I should talk to you first. What I want to tell her
is that we need to follow the patient's
advance directive. He said no feeding tube, so there's really no choice.

Isn't that our policy? Right; VA policy states
that the surrogate must follow the patient's wishes
as far as they're known. It's a matter
of patient autonomy. The patient still gets
to make his own decisions even after he's lost
decision-making capacity. See, that's what I thought. Tell you what, Mike, I'm going
to talk to her, see how it goes.

I'm hoping I can get her
to go along with it. It would sure
make things easier. It definitely would. These conversations
can get a little dicey. Do you want me involved? I don't think so. I'm going to do
what we talked about before. You know, make sure
we stay focused on what the patient
would want us to do. Sounds good. One more question.

Anybody on the team
have a problem with the feeding tube
withdrawal in this case? No, everyone agrees we should
go with the advance directive. I don't anticipate
any problems on that front. And the patient's sister, she wants the feeding tube
withdrawn? Definitely. Given the conflict
in the family, you should probably
involve legal counsel. I've already got
a call into them. [beeping] Hey, listen, I've got to run. Someone's paging me. Okay, then; let me know
what happens, will you? You bet;
hey, do me a favor. Would you do a consult note
for the chart? Yeah… Yes. Great; talk to you. Well, sorry about that. I guess it was pretty much
a false alarm.

What? What's wrong? Is there anything wrong? What did you see
that went right? What did you see that you
would have done differently? Let's pause for ten minutes to analyze
this telephone conversation between Dr. Ingersoll
and Dr. Burrows. Use the work sheet
labeled Exercise 1. There's a transcript
of the telephone conversation and a few questions
for you to discuss. When the clock
on screen reaches zero, we'll come back
to the action..

As found on YouTube

>> Welcome to Chem 5. I'm your instructor Doug Tobias. Looking forward to working
hard with you all quarter long and hopefully having lots of
fun learning useful things. So, the first thing that
I should tell you is that if you turn around you
will see that the lectures for Chem 5 are being filmed. And this is part of a
big project on campus which is called Open Courseware. And we're trying to get all of our required undergraduate
chemistry courses archived, both for UCI students
as well as Planet Earth. And that's an exciting project. And I've agreed to
participate in this.

One thing I should tell you is
that if you feel at all strange about having the backs of
your heads appear on film or, perhaps more embarrassingly,
if you happen to be doing something other
than Chem 5 related things like looking at your
Facebook, it may actually show up on the film, you might
want to sit on the other side of the classroom so that you're
not in the eye of the lens. Okay? All right, so what I
like to do before I get started with the course is to figure
out what's the composition of our class so I can figure
out who I can make jokes about.

So first of all,
is there anybody in the room who's not
a chemistry major? Raise your hand. Okay. Is there anybody in the room who's a
chemistry/biology double major? Ah, can't make jokes
about bio majors then. What about engineers? Any double majors
with engineering? Okay, good. We can pick on the engineers. All right, so we're going
to get right to work today. You might be thinking
that's a little strange because this is discussion. Well, in this course,
there's no distinction between the discussion
and the lecture. The only distinction is is that the discussion
is 50 minutes long and the lecture is
an hour and 20, okay? Now, you might be thinking
well that's kind of unfortunate because I actually
like to discuss. Well, the good news
is that you're free to discuss both during the
discussions and lectures, okay? So this is going
to be hopefully, a somewhat interactive course. All right? So, feel free to
discuss anytime you want.

All right, so now what I'm
going to do is I'm going to very quickly go
over the syllabus just to make sure a few
things are clear. I expect that you
all have read it as I instructed you
to do last week. All right, so first of
all, here's our homepage. And there's not much of
interest on the homepage except for this really cool picture. And you'll actually learn how
to make really cool pictures like that this quarter.

And it's not very difficult. The only thing to notice
maybe is the announcements. So every time I update the
Website, unless I forget like I did today, I'll say
when I updated it, okay? So today I posted the homework
assignment, but I forgot to update the announcements. Anyway, we'll talk
about that later. Okay, now, so if you see that
there's been a new announcement since last time you were here
and you might want to check at least once a week, you can
go and see what I had to say. So here's the announcement that you've already seen
welcoming you to the class and telling you to go
read the syllabus, okay? So let's have a quick
look at the syllabus. So first of all, this is going
to be really confusing for me, but hopefully not for you. I'm actually teaching
two sections of Chem 5 concurrently,
all right? And the schedules
are really weird.

So from time to time I'm
going to get really confused. But, the one thing I can tell
you is that this is Section B. And your TA is named
Vera Prytkova and she's sitting
right over there. And she's going to
be a very good friend of yours this quarter. She's going to be
helping you a lot and especially with
your homework. So you should be nice to her. And if you are, then
she'll treat you well. Okay, another thing
is, we're not going to hold regular office hours. We're going to be seeing a
lot of each other in here. There will be lots of
opportunities for us to talk to one another, answer
your questions. But that doesn't
mean that we are against seeing you
in our offices. So, if you have anything
you want to talk about outside the
classroom, please feel free to make an appointment either
with Vera or myself, okay? Don't feel intimidated.

Another thing is about emailing. There's probably not a
whole lot of reasons to need to be emailing us,
especially because we're going to see each other so
much in the class. If you do so, just
keep in mind that a lot of what we're doing
is fairly technical and sometimes it's hard to discuss technical
things over email. And so you know, be patient
and we'll try to figure out how to best address your
concerns via email.

But, like I say, most of
the time we should be able to take care of anything
you want to know here in the lecture. Now, if you do want to send
emails, there's a couple of ground rules so that we can
distinguish your very important emails from all the lousy
stuff that comes our way. And that is that you should send
your email from a UCI account and be sure to include your full
name and your student ID number at the bottom of your email. That will help us a lot. Okay. What else? So by now you probably
know when we meet. So we have the two
lectures — wait a minute. We're actually Section A.
What are you doing here? Sorry, Vera's not your TA.

Your TA is not here today. Her name is Krista. See, I'm already confused
about the sections. All right. Well, in any case,
you can hang out Vera. This is your class. And like I said, very
importantly, you're expected to come to both lecture
and discussion and one of the two labs. You don't have to go to both. And the labs are very
important because that's where you're going to get
your homework done, okay? So the whole purpose of the
labs is for you to do homework and get help from your TA.

And most of the time you'll get
your homework done in the lab, so you won't actually have to take it home with
you, all right? Now, if you don't finish in
the lab, and that will be rare, then you'll have opportunities
either to come here or to some other computer
lab that has the software that we're going to be
using, which I'll talk about in just a second,
all right? Now, strictly speaking, you
don't have to go to the lab to which you're assigned. You could go to the
other one, but we would like to encourage you as much
as possible to go to your lab because otherwise if there's
a lot more students in one lab versus the other, it will
be harder to give help to the larger section. Right now they're fairly
equally balanced, okay? So, but from time to time,
you may not be able to make it to one and you can
go to the other. Okay. Now, course materials. So, in this class
there's no book. The book is the notes, which
we'll get to in a minute.

And those were prepared
specifically by me for this class, okay? They're free. And the one thing that you might
consider is to purchase a copy of the software that
we're going to use. This course we're
almost exclusively going to be using a software
package called Mathematica. How many have heard of or
used Mathematica before? Okay, a few. All right. So that's what we're
going to do.

And we're going to
start from zero assuming that you don't know anything. And we'll work our way up to solving really
cool chemistry problems. And the goal of this class — well one of the goals of
this class is to prepare you to be able to use
Mathematica to do things like physical chemistry
homework, to do things like analysis and
representation of datasets from your lab classes and your
research and to introduce you to a very, very powerful
software package that is sufficiently
impressive that if you list it on your resume, which you
will have the right to do if you pass this class, then that may actually be
a good feather in your cap when you're looking for a job. Okay? It's definitely
well recognized as a very, very powerful software package. All right. Now, we don't have a book, but
some people like to have books. And so there are many, many
books written about Mathematica. There are not really any
good ones on chemistry, but if you want just general
introductions to the software, I listed three here
that I've looked at that seem somewhat useful,
especially at the beginning.

So you may want to
have a look at those. All right. The grades. So, this class is
a hands-on class. We're teaching you the
techniques and we want you to show that you can use
those techniques, all right? And most of the way that
you're going to show that is by doing your homework,
all right? And homework's extremely
important, so it's representing 50
percent of your grade. All right? We're going to have a mid-term around the middle
of the quarter. That'll be about 20 percent. And then we'll have a final
exam during finals week, and that'll be 30
percent, all right? Now, I want to say a few
things about the grades. So first of all, this is a
class for chemistry majors.

We love our majors. We want them to learn. And in this class, I don't
want you to be intimidated by worrying about
your grade, all right? If you do your work by
yourself, and that's the key, and don't cheat by
going to somebody who took the class some
years ago and get their work, and if you can show a
reasonable proficiency — and reasonable is a very
liberal definition — then you'll get a good
grade in this class. And by good grade I mean
an A or B. It's really hard in this class if you actually do
the work to get a lousy grade.

You'll have to try
really, really hard. The best way to get
a lousy grade is to not do the work yourself
and not turn it all in. That may cost you. But otherwise, you're
guaranteed to get a good grade and you shouldn't worry about
it, even if you're struggling, because some of you will. I know this from experience. Okay? All right. Now, when you're
doing the homework, you will certainly benefit
greatly from a lot of advice and consultation with the TA
in the lab sections, okay? And that's fine. You also may discuss with your
classmates certain aspects of the problems. But in the end, you
should do your own work. That's the main rule
of this course. You've got to do your own work. Okay? All right. Now, here are the exams. So you know when they are. And basically, the exams
are going to be the same as the homework assignments
except you won't get help from the TA or me, except
maybe to clarify the question.

So this is really to see if you
can take what you've learned by doing homework and do it
again but without help, okay? So not really super difficult. And one thing about all
of the work in this class, with the exception of
copying off classmates, and/or using work
from previous years, everything is available
to you at any time. If you want, you can
wheel in a rack of books to use during your
homework and exams. You can use anything
that you can find on the Internet except work
related to this course. It's all available. And in fact, you can use, and I
expect you to use and advise you to use, your homework
assignments and the notes from this class because I will
never ask you to do something that I did not teach
you how to do. All right? So the notes in particular will
be very, very useful to you.

All right? Okay, so you can read what I
have to say about cheating. I expect that you won't do it. And you can also read, if for
some reason you need to deal with enrollment, I can't do
anything with enrollment. You have to talk
to the nice people over in the chemistry office
who you probably know very well. Okay, now, a couple of
other little things. And then we'll get to work. Woops. Let's see. So when I post homework
assignments, they'll be on the homework page. And so for example, here's one. It's going to be a PDF file. It's going to have
some problems on it. They look long and
intimidating, but they're not. It's mostly because I
want to explain to you in gory detail what
you're supposed to do. We'll talk about the
homework tomorrow. Your labs are on
Wednesday, so I'm going to tell you basically how
to do your homework tomorrow at the end of lecture. If you want, you can look at it. And if you know how to do it,
you can already get started.

Now, everything that
you do, every assignment in this course including
the exams is electronic. And it's going to be
turned in electronically. All right, I haven't set it
up yet, but there's going to be a drop box
available to you. It's going to say
something like homework 1. And you're going to turn in
your assignments in drop boxes for every assignment
including exams, okay? And I assume that you
know how to do that. If you don't, there's
some instructions here that you can follow. In our class most of your
assignments are going to be what's called
Mathematica notebooks.

So, all you have to do is
name your file something like HW1, say, dot MB. That's the extension for
Mathematica Notebook. Your name will automatically be
put on it when you turn it in. So you don't need
to put your name. Just keep it simple. Homework 1, mid-term, final. That's all you have to do. Okay? All right. One last little thing. Here on the links page are
some important things, okay? So first of all, this is
basically your textbook and the auxiliary
files that go with it. All right? I've organized the material
into what I call lessons. They're somewhat arbitrary to
the way they're divided up. And we'll most likely make
it through all of them. Okay? So I assume you've
read the introduction, which just gives you a
brief overview to the class. And today we'll start
on Lesson 1. Okay.

Now, are there
any questions about what I just told you about
how the class is going to work? Okay. All right. So, I already kind of
alluded to it, but I just want to say a couple more
things very briefly about what we're
going to do here. So first of all, you
guys are really lucky. You're really lucky
because you are living on the very highly evolved tail
of what's called Moore's Law. Has anybody ever
heard of Moore's Law? No? Okay, well Gordon
Moore, who founded Intel, the company that made
the processors that are in most PC's nowadays. Back in the mid-60's,
when I was a baby and way before you
guys were born, he said every two years
the computing capacity of integrated circuits, so the CPUs in your
computers, will double.

And the price will
remain roughly constant. Moore's Law has been very, very closely followed
for about 35 years. And there's lots of talk
about it coming to an end. But in any case, what this means
is is that there's been a huge, huge improvement in
computer capabilities. And so now, you know,
computers run your cars. You have your little Smart
phones, you have your laptops. Computers are everywhere. And importantly for us,
they're in the chemistry lab. When I was an undergrad,
I used to have to make graphs on graph paper. Have you ever seen graph paper? Yeah? And we used to use
slide rules, not calculators. And then toward the end of my
undergrad we used calculators. And even programmable
calculators so we could calculate
something like a mean in about 20 minutes
from, you know, 50 data points or something. Okay? Now, everything's
computerized. It's very easy to use. And you are living in the age where that is available
to you, all right? Now, one of the —
well, there are many, many amazing software
packages that have been written over this period since I was
an undergrad that are very, very powerful at
doing a lot of things that are relevant to chemistry.

One of those is Mathematica. And hopefully in this course
you'll get a taste for some of the things that you
can do in them, okay? And the main objective of this
course is to make you familiar with the program so
that you can use it to do useful things later. All right? And what you're going to be able to do is you can use
it as a calculator. You can use it to read in,
manipulate, plot, fit data, do statistics, output data. You can use it to solve
systems of equations that would be very difficult
if not impossible by hand that are very relevant to
complicated chemical kinetics and chemical equilibrium
problems. And you can use it to do
calculus that's relevant to many aspects of
physical chemistry, especially quantum mechanics,
statistical mechanics, okay? So you're going to learn
how to do all those things.

Now, you might be thinking, man,
I'm just now taking calculus. Or I haven't had the math. Well, that's quite possible. And so, because I'm aware
of the fact that you're in different places in
your chemistry major degree completion, I'm going
to try to provide for you the appropriate
mathematical or chemical background for
the stuff that we're going to be doing because the
whole objective here is to teach you how to solve
chemistry-related problems or do chemistry-related data
manipulations using this software package. And at times that's going
to mean I'm going to have to teach you things
that you don't know. And it's going to be quickly. And you're probably going
to feel like you're lost. And I'll just tell you — give you a preview that
this is not a math class. It's not even really strictly
speaking a chemistry class.

This is a computer skills class. So if you don't get the math or if you don't get the physical
chemistry that we're going to talk about, don't worry about
it because I'm going to explain that stuff, and ultimately
all you have to do is translate
it into the software. And it may sound
intimidating at the moment, but I know from experience
that most of you will find that it's actually
not so bad, okay? And if it is bad, let us know. Because it's not
supposed to be bad. All right? Okay. So now let's go
ahead and get started. So every time, when you come
into the class at the beginning of class, log into your
computer and go ahead and fire up Mathematica.

So I'm going to show
you how to do that now. If you haven't already figured
it out, what we're going to do is go into this
folder called Apps. Double click on Wolfram
Mathematica 8. And I'm going to — you don't
have to do this, but I'm going to make my font 1 1/2 times
so that those of you who are in the back can see it. And now, you get
this blank screen. And this is what's called a
Mathematica Notebook, okay? And you may notice up in the
upper left there's a little horizontal cursor that's
blinking, waiting for you to tell the program
to do something. Now, there are many
different modes in which you can
enter information. And we'll talk about
some of those later, some of the other ones. The default mode is what
I would call command mode, which means you can execute
commands related to, you know, mathematical operations
or whatever, reading and data, et cetera, et cetera.

Okay? So we're going to start with very simple
arithmetic operations. Okay? So the first
thing I'm going to do is I'm going
to type 2 plus 2. And then what you do is
you find the enter key, which is the return
key — woops, sorry. And with a shift, shift enter, you enter this command,
all right? So when I type 2 plus
2, nothing happens. But as soon as I
hit shift enter, that means execute this command. All right? Now, what you see is
that you got a result, 4. That's the result of
adding 2 plus 2, okay? All right, so that's your first
— well, maybe not all of you, but for most of you, your
first Mathematica command. Now, I want to say a couple
of things about the format, which you will get used
to as times goes on. Okay, so first of all, every
time you're in input mode and typing in a command,
you have this thing that says in bracket number. And that number is keeping track
of how many commands you have within a given section, okay? And it keeps track
of them in order of how they're executed
regardless of where they are
on the screen, okay? And the output corresponding to that command also
gets the number 1, okay? So that's our first command.

Input was 2 plus
2, output was 4. One other thing to notice, over on the right hand side
there are some brackets. And these brackets sort of let you know how your
commands are organized within the notebook, okay? And they're useful — it's useful to be able to
keep track of those sometimes. For what we're going to do
now, you can ignore them. But I just want to
explain to you. So first of all, within a
continuous sequence of commands, there will be one
bracket on the outside that contains all
of those, okay? And every time there's an input
there will be a little bracket inside that has a little
triangle thing on the top. And every time there's an
output it'll be the same. It'll have a little
line below the triangle. Okay? So these are things
that as time goes on and we start doing more
complicated things, you may want to make use of the fact that
you can manipulate those.

So, and we'll see
that as time goes on. But for now we won't
worry about it too much. Okay, now, if I want,
I can edit. So suppose I said, well I didn't
really want to add 2 plus 2, I actually wanted
to add 2 plus 3. So I can go up here and put
my cursor there, backspace, and then if I hit
shift enter again, notice it updates the result. And now you may also notice that
it has replaced 1's with 2's because it's keeping track of all the commands I'm
making in this session.

All right. Now, if I want, I can
keep adding commands to this same what we cell. So this exterior bracket here
is denoting a single cell, okay? So, for example, I can do
a multiplication 2 times 3. So multiplication can be done
with the asterisk, all right? So if I do that, shift enter,
I get the result, 6, all right? And notice it's now 3. And there's another way that
you can do multiplications, all right? Another way is if
you say 2 space 3. Notice, when I put the
space in and type 3, Mathematica interprets
that as a multiplication. It puts in the times
sign, all right? And that's something to be
aware of because sometimes when you're typing in things,
if you have a spurious space that you didn't notice you
accidentally put in, you may or may not want that
to be interpreted as a multiplication, okay? So it's good to be
aware of that.

So if I enter that, of
course, I get the same result. Now, if I want, I can
break out of this cell. So notice — oops, sorry. These are all individual
commands. If I want, I can
start a new sequence. It doesn't really
affect things much. You know, I can go down a little
bit and — or I can go up. I'm sorry, I can go up here
in the middle somewhere and add additional commands. So for example, suppose
I want to raise 2 to the power of 3, all right? So 2 to the power of
3, use this carat. All right? So this carat means
2 to the 3rd. All right? So you enter that and
you get 8, as expected. Now notice, even though
I went back and put this in between a couple of commands,
it's still keeping track of the total number,
and this is 5.

This is something that's useful
to keep in mind because later on as we do more and
more complicated things, we may end up screwing
things up by moving around within the notebook. But don't worry about
that for now. We'll see how that works later. Okay. Now, what if you
want to do division? So I'll come down
here at the bottom. And now I'm going to
do 6 divided by 3. So division is with
the forward slash. Okay? So if I do 6 divided
by 3, I get 2, all right? Now let's try a different
division. 16 divided by 6. I got 8/3. This shows a very important
point about Mathematica, okay? This is an exact
result, all right? Mathematica in general will
return an exact result whenever it can. Okay? And we'll see
shortly how you can turn that into an approximate or a
numerical result if you want.

All right? One way to do that is to put
an inexact number in somewhere. So here we have two integers,
so this is the exact fraction, 16 divided by 6 reduced
as far as possible. If I want a decimal
representation I just can make one of my numbers a decimal. So if I say 16 point
divided by 6, now this is in principle
an inexact number. And so when I enter that
command, I get 2 and 2/3 or 2.6667, to one, two, three,
four, five decimal places.

Now, by default, Mathematica
will return five decimal places. Okay? And we'll see how to
change that soon enough. Okay? All right. Now, so far all we've done is
single arithmetic operations. What if we want to chain
a bunch of them together? All right? So let's try one. We'll do 2 times 3
plus 4, all right? So what do you thing
we should get? >> 10. >> Should we get first 2
times 3 and then plus 4? Or should we get
2 times 3 plus 4? In general, what happens is
that the operations are executed from left to right and
there is a precedent, okay? And the precedent is
exponentiation before multiplication and division
before addition and subtraction.

All right? So if you have a
complicated expression, and you want it organized
in a particular way, you should use parentheses
to group the operations that you want to be
done together, okay? And this is very important and
it's one of the major sources of mistakes or getting something
that you didn't' want to get. It has to do with this
order of operations and not putting parentheses in
the right places, all right? So my advice to you, and
I'll keep saying this again and again, is to just use
lots and lots of parentheses.

Okay? So let's try this one. We get 10. And that's the expected result of having first 2 times
3 and then plus 4. Now, what if I wanted to do
2 times quantity 3 plus 4? Well, then I put
in the parentheses. So I'd say 3 plus 4. And what this does is it
forces 3 plus 4 to be executed and then multiplied by 2. So we should get 14, and we do. Okay? Here's another example. 3 divided by 2 to
the power of 6, okay? Now, what we expect
to happen is 2 to the 6th is going
to be executed. And then 3 is going to be
divided by that, all right? So what should we get? 2 to the 6th is 64. So we should get
3 divided by 64. And we do. Okay? But what if instead
we actually wanted 3/2 to the power of 6? Well, in that case, we
should use parentheses to make sure we get the
3/2 and then power 6. In that case, we get a
quite different result, 729 divided by 64. And notice in both
cases, as advertised, Mathematica returns
the exact result. All right? Okay. Now, we're going
to be making a lot of use of so-called commonly
used numbers like e.

The base
of the natural log. We may also use — we will
also use from time to time, not very often, i,
the imaginary number. So I'm going to show you how
we actually can access those using Mathematica. Also pi. So let's start with pi. So if I want pi, I can type
capital P and then lower case I. And if I enter, notice that Mathematica says,
yes, I know about pi. And that's the exact
representation of pi. It's the symbol pi, okay? All right? And notice what happens if I do
use a lower case by accident. I get a word pi that
doesn't mean anything. Okay? So that's something
to keep in mind, that predefined numbers, and
later we'll see functions and variables in Mathematica
start with capital letters. Okay. Now another one, e.
If I want the number e, I type capital E, all right? If I enter that, notice that I
get the letter e.

So it looks like the letter e, but there's
something special about this one that I want you to
notice immediately, and that is that it's got
this little slash on it, okay? And that's to be distinguished
from the true letter e, which you can get by
typing a lower case. Lower case, you get just
e. This is the letter e, which doesn't mean anything
special to Mathematica. This is the number e that
has this little slash on it that is the actual number. So for example, we can see what
that is by saying report to me e to the power of 1 point.

And those of you
who are familiar with the numerical value of
e know that in fact it is about 2.72, all right? If I did that with
little e, I get nonsense. It just spits it back
the way I wrote it. Okay? All right, another one
is i. So if I type capital I, that's the imaginary number. And notice, as in the case
of e, it's got a little bit of that double vision
thing going on. And I can check to see that
it's the imaginary number i by squaring it. So i squared, and
notice I get minus 1. Okay? All right. All right, so those are some
commonly used predefined numbers in Mathematica. Now, I'm going to
introduce you to a few of the predefined
user functions. There are literally thousands
and thousands of functions, and as time goes on
we'll probably learn about a hundred or so. But I want to introduce you
to a few simple arithmetic or mathematical functions that
we will use commonly, okay? So one of them is
absolute value.

Absolute value is capital ABS. And so if I put in for example
minus 5 and enter, I get 5. Now notice, I used
square brackets when indicating the
argument to a function, okay? There's lots of different kinds
of brackets in Mathematica. This is another source of
many headaches and errors, but I'll try to help you to
avoid those as time goes on. But whenever you're
indicating the argument to the function you
use square brackets. Okay? So if I want
to do a square root, the command is SQRT
with a capital. And then I can put in an
argument with brackets. So for example square root of 2. And I get the square root of 2. Once again, you see,
it didn't give me 1.414 or whatever dot, dot, dot. It gave me literally
the square root of 2. That's the exact representation. If I want the numerical,
one way I could get that is to say square root of 2 point. Then I get 1.41421, okay? And notice, if I
put in lower case, it just spits it back at me. And that normally means
something's wrong. All right? So that's not square
root, obviously.

Okay. Now, what if
you want logarithms? Well, logarithms are LOG. and if you just say LOG, so
for example I say LOG of e, you get the natural
log, all right? So just plain old LOG is
understood as the natural log. So if I take the natural
log of e, what should I get? 1. And sure enough, I get 1. Well, we often like to
use other logs, right? So for example, we use
log 10 a lot in chemistry, pH being a common example. So if I want log base
10, there's a couple of ways I can do that. One is to say LOG 10.

That's a special command
to give me the log base 10. And so for example, if I put
in 100, what should I get? >> 2. >> I get 2. All right? Another way to do logs
of arbitrary bases, okay? So we'll do log 10, but you can
use this to do log of any base, is to actually use the
regular old log command, except now include
two arguments. The first is the base. So this is going
to give me log 10. And the second is the
actual argument, 100. So this is equivalent
to the previous command. And we get 2, all right? So we will see quite frequently
there are multiple ways to get the same answer,
all right? Now suppose we want log base 2? Well, there's no command
log 2, so what we have to do there is we
have to say LOG 2 and then give the argument.

So for example, if I put
in 8, what should I get? >> 3. >> 3, because 8 is 2 to the 3rd. Okay? All right. What else do we have? How about trig functions? Sine is capital Sin. So if I say Sin of
Pi, what should I get? >> 0. >> 0. What about cosine? Cosine of Pi. Minus 1. How about inverse
cosine, or arccosine? Well, the way you do that is you
say capital Arc, capital Cos. So if I put in minus
1, what should I get? Pi. And I do. Okay? All right. >> Question. >> Yeah. >> If you want to put like
degrees, like cosine of 60, it should be .5 but
it [inaudible]. >> Because the default
units for angles in Mathematica is going
to be radians, okay? And we will see soon
how to convert. But I don't want to
go there just yet. It's very easy to convert.

But we'll see that later, okay? But just keep in mind, by
default, I think it's this way with most calculators,
certainly on computer programs, the units of the
angles are radians. Okay. Now I want to introduce
you to another function that I alluded to earlier, and that is the numerical
representation function, okay? So there's a function
called N. Okay, so first let's just remind
ourselves, so if I just type Pi, I get the exact representation. Now, what if I want a
numerical representation of pi? I can say capital
N bracket Pi, okay? So what that does is it converts
my exact number, the symbol pi, into a numerical representation. And as in previous
examples, the default is to give you five decimal places. Okay? So N brackets just
means give me a number, a decimal number, of
whatever's in the brackets.

Okay? Now, what if I
want more accuracy? Well, what I do is I
say okay, N bracket. I say what I want to get the
decimal representation of. And then I say how many
decimal points do I want? So how many — anybody
in here — so some nerds like to show off
how many digits of pi they know. Anybody in here think they
know a lot of digits of pi? How many do you know? [ Inaudible Audience Response ] Yeah, I know about six or so,
so I think I'm pretty good.

Well, Mathematica is very smart. Let's try 100. There you go. There's pi to 100
decimal places. Piece of cake. All right? So you can get as
many as you want. So the whole point, though,
is it just says convert this to a numerical representation with 100 decimal
places, all right? So I can do, for example,
N bracket, and I can embed within that a function,
square root of 2. And I can say give me
eight decimal places. So there you have it, one,
two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, okay? All right. Now, there's another way to use
this N. And the way I'm going to show you how to do this is
useful for other functions. So this is going to
be your introduction to a particular format.

So suppose I do some calculation
and I don't want to type N and put the thing in brackets. But I still want a
numerical representation. Sometimes it's convenient
to be able to do it sort of after the fact, all right? So here I do square
root of 2, all right? So there's my square root of 2. Now, if I want a numerical
representation, I could say — I could go up here and say,
oh, I have to type N bracket and put a bracket
on the other side. Well, another way I can
do the same thing is to use this notation:
slash slash N. So look what happens
when I do that. It gives me now the
numerical representation. So this is what's
called a post-fix. We'll see other examples later. And it's convenient
sometimes because you don't — maybe sometimes you have
a really beautiful thing and you don't want to make it
look ugly by putting N brackets around it, but you still want
the numerical representation.

You could just do this at
the very end, all right? What this literally means
is it means take the result of whatever's on the left side
of the two slashes and feed it into N. It's called post-fix. And you can do this
with other functions. So you could say take
the result of this and put something else here
if you want, all right? So we'll see more
examples of that later. All right. So we have just a
couple of minutes left. So I want to show
you one more thing.

All right? And this is something
that can be useful, but it also can be the source
of headaches, all right? So I'm going to show it to you,
and I will occasionally use it. And I encourage you if you think
it's useful to use it also. But just be aware that you
can get into some trouble. Okay. So what this is is this is
a shortcut to be able to refer to the result of a
previous cell, okay? So for example, the last command that I executed here
was this one, all right? And it's number 37. Now, if I want to
refer to this number, I can do that with percent. Okay? So let's see
how that works. I type percent times 10. Okay? So what this means
is it means take the result of the last, the very, very
last command that I entered, which is this one,
and multiply it by 10.

So what should I get? 14.1421 whatever, okay? So there it is. Now, if I want, I can do
other things with this, okay? So what do you think will happen
if I say percent times 10 again? Am I going to get
the same number? No. Because now the last
command is this one. So I'm going to get
10 times that, okay? All right, now, what
if I say, oh, I didn't want to
multiply it by 10.

I wanted to multiply it by 100. Can I get to this one? Yes. I can get to that one
by doing the double percent. So double percent means
go back two commands. So 39, 38, all right? And now I can multiply
that one times — well just make it different
by saying 1000, all right? And now I get 1000 times
this one, not this one. Okay? So this can be useful to avoid typing a
bunch of stuff in. But it also, you
have to keep in mind that it refers to
the last command. So for example, if I go
up here, and I say oh, I want to do 10 times this. And I say, okay,
percent times 10. Am I going to get 14? No. I'm going to get
10 times this number, because that was
the last command. And there you have it. Okay? So you have to be
careful if you're jumping around and you're using
this percent thing. Okay? Now, other things I can do
is I can say square root of 2.

And then I can use the percent
as an argument to a function. So for example I say,
okay, N bracket percent, so I don't actually have to go and type N square
root of 2, okay? So you can use it
as an argument also. It just means take
whatever was the result of the last command
and use it here. It's very general. Okay? So, that's all for today. So next time we're
going to learn how to plot, make simple plots. And then I'll tell you
how to do your homework. All right? So next time is tomorrow at 2. Okay? Have a nice day.
——————————d1f6fd63f7bd–.

As found on YouTube

Hey Psych2goers! Welcome back to our channel! Supporters like you help us in our goal to spread   awareness about mental health and psychology. 
You help us make psychology and mental health   more accessible to everyone. Thank you 
for your support! Now, on to the video. At times, we can often forget to give our 
mental health the attention it deserves.   Some of our actions may be too mentally draining, 
such as holding onto toxic relationships or   pushing ourselves too hard with school or work. 
It can be a good idea to step back and take a look   at our behaviors and habits and ask ourselves the 
question: do I possess healthy habits? Or negative   ones? I’m sure we all have negative habits, but 
now it’s time to start incorporating some mentally   beneficial behaviors into our routines in hopes 
we can develop a new habit – a good one this time.  Here are ten healthy habits that 
boost your emotional well-being.

ONE: Perfecting Your Posture Did you know that having an upright posture 
is not only seen as generally more attractive   but has emotionally positive effects as well?
According to a study in the Journal of   Behavior Therapy and Experimental 
Psychiatry, upright posture can   have a positive effect and reduce fatigue.
Are you slouching while you’re watching this   video? It’s time to sit up straight now!
The preliminary study’s conclusions   suggested that: “adopting an upright 
posture may increase positive affect,   reduce fatigue, and decrease self-focus in 
people with mild-to-moderate depression.” TWO: Learn to Acknowledge What You’re Feeling While it may seem convenient at the time to 
go ahead and ignore that sadness or anger   inside you, – I mean according to you, you have 
work to do! – in the long run, suppressing your   emotions can actually do more harm than good.
Just because you consciously suppress your   emotions, does not mean they go away. Instead, 
they build up. You should instead express   emotions such as sadness, anger, or anxiety 
to someone you trust.

Just imagine what could   happen if you don’t allow yourself to release an 
emotion like anger, and instead let it build up? Take anger for example, “[Anger has] been 
linked to obesity, low self-esteem, migraines,   drug and alcohol addiction, depression, sexual 
performance problems, increased heart attack risk,   lower-quality relationships, higher probability 
of abusing others emotionally or physically or   both … higher blood pressure and stroke,” says 
anger management coach Dr. Schinnerer. Jeez,   that sounds like one of those over-the-top ads on 
TV.

No thank you cheery ad! It’s time to express   yourself… in a healthy way, of course!
Anger can also lead to insomnia,   anxiety, self-esteem issues, and 
mental or brain fog to name a few. This is just anger. There are physical 
and mental problems that can arise from   any suppression of emotion it seems. 
Because when these emotions build up,   they will eventually rise to the surface, 
and likely explode out of you like a volcano!  So, what are we supposed to 
do about all these feelings?  Well, anger coach Schinnerer 
suggests one way to break this cycle,   and that begins with mindfulness: “One way to do 
this,” he says, “is by becoming more aware of when   you’re angry in the present moment, then looking 
at the emotion in a nonjudgmental and curious way.   So instead of beating yourself up, acknowledge 
how you’re feeling and think about ways to cope.” So, take a break if you’re feeling anger 
in a toxic situation, and leave the room.   Pretend your favorite pizza dish has just 
arrived, and you need to ‘pause’ your game.   That is, the treacherous game of anger. 
Level 5: Volcano Eruptions of Fury Hey, I’m givin’ ya visuals here.
Remember, this is just anger.

But you can do this   with all your emotions. We can’t always control 
what we feel, but we can control what actions we   take once they are triggered. Feel your emotion 
at the moment, acknowledge them, express them   in a calm way. Then let the emotions flow out of 
you. Like an ocean breeze, in the midsummer air…  Yep! Visuals help release your emotions 
in a… healthy and… cathartic way. THREE: Get Enough Sleep It’s time you’ve got your daily Z’s – or 
should I say… “nightly” Z’s. – It’s time   you got your nightly Z’s, my fellow Psych2Goers. 
I know you’ve been slacking. What time are you   watching this video? 10:00am? 2:00pm?? [whispers 
to self] Don’t say 3:00am.

Don’t say 3:00am!  …It’s 3:00am, isn’t it?  The truth of it all is sleep is vital to 
your mental health and emotional well-being.   Sleep helps repair and renew all the cells 
in our bodies. Every time we lay down on   that pillow and go to our blissful dreams – uh, 
discluding nightmares – we wash away any toxins   that can build up throughout our day. With 
enough sleep, we can have quicker reflexes,   mental clarity, and simply feel better.
So, if you’re watching this way past your bedtime,   it’s time to sleep after this video.

FOUR: Exercise Regularly Life can get hectic and busy. But, that doesn’t 
mean we should neglect our health.

The benefits   of exercise can start to present themselves if 
we fit in enough regular exercise each month. Our bodies release specific endorphins that 
relieve stress and boost our mood when we   exercise. So it can be a valuable tool when 
you’re feeling anxious or depressed. I know,   it can feel difficult to even get out of bed 
when we’re feeling sad or anxious about our day.   But, if you can find the will to push yourself 
– even literally out of bed – that’s a great   step towards feeling better! Next is pushing 
yourself on that workout bike of yours downstairs.

FIVE: Make Socialization Part of Your Routine When we are distracted or busy we can forget 
to socialize with the ones we love. Whether   we have friends or not, it’s best to get out 
there and practice a bit of socialization.  According to the National Institutes of Health, 
“social connections might help protect health   and lengthen life. Scientists are finding that 
our links to others can have powerful effects on   our health—both emotionally and physically.” So, 
volunteer at an organization you’re passionate   about, call up your mom or long-lost friend, 
join a community with individuals like you!   You can even leave a comment below and socialize 
with fellow Psych2goers.

We’re here to listen.   Whatever you do, it’s best to open up and express 
how you feel to someone. Psych2goers included. SIX: Think Before You Act Oh boy, how many of us have jumped up and blurted 
out the first thing we think of in excitement?   Like that time my friend was telling me about the 
loss of her goldfish Crackers, and I blurted out:   “Crackers? The cheesy one?” Just me? Yea… 
she didn’t have any crackers. I mean, not the   snack at least. Must not get them confused again.
The thing is, we can act before we think. When we   first need to calm down our strong emotions before 
taking action. Sometimes before even processing a   request or comment, we fill in the blank with what 
we think someone else means.

In my case, I thought   she said: “We got some Goldfish crackers” but what 
she really said was: “The funeral preparations for   my goldfish, Crackers, has already begun.” 
Sigh, I get too many late-night munchies.  But often people can interpret something said with 
normalcy as something cruel-intended due to our   own negative feelings. So, it’s best to think and 
process what’s really being said, before you act. SEVEN: Be Present in the Moment This behavior isn’t always the easiest to turn 
habitual. We can often ruminate on our worries   throughout the day. These worries can create 
anxiety and pile up. Instead, try focusing on one   task at a time. If you find yourself struggling, 
try noticing the physical sensations around you,   what you’re smelling, tasting, hearing. This will 
help ground you back to reality and calm down.

EIGHT: Take a Break and Practice Self-Care Congratulations! Watching this video is a part 
of practicing some self-care and relaxation.   Ah, the calmness of learning habits to boost your 
emotional well-being… Are you feeling it now? It’s important to take a break when life gets 
too busy or challenging and do something we love.   If that’s simply watching a few YouTube videos 
in quiet solitude, go right ahead! If it’s taking   a relaxing, warm bubble bath? Get the water 
running because it’s time for some you-time! If you still feel like your days are too 
busy, you can simply try taking a moment   to do some deep breathing and lower your 
heart rate. Deep breath in… deep breath out. NINE: Don’t Make Social Media a Habit As much as you like mindlessly scrolling   and pressing the heart button on 
your friends’ social media posts,   posting photos of your food, – stop it! You’re 
making me hungry – and posting relatable memes   all-day- Well… that one is pretty fun.
But! As much as you like spending your   undue time on social media, it isn’t 
always great for your mental health.  I mean, think about it.

You’re often hunched 
over and cramped, staring at a little screen.  Straight posture, everyone! Straight posture!
Not only that, but people often find themselves   comparing themselves to photoshopped 
influencers with unrealistic lives.   Plus, too much of one thing can tend to 
be bad, and unproductive in this case. So,   it’s best to not make social media a habit, use 
it sparingly to post and browse memes every now   and then.

I suppose with the memes, a good laugh 
never hurt anybody? Uh-oh, old habits die hard. TEN: Eat Healthy I know. I can’t help it either sometimes. 
Sometimes I simply want to snack on… well…   don’t mention crackers… it’s best to move on…
But, a healthy diet not only helps your brain   but your body as well. So, take it easy on the 
snack food for now. And instead, recognize those   delicious leafy greens and bright-colored 
fruits will only add to your good mood.  You can start by trying to include foods 
rich in Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.   Research has shown that these nutrients restore 
structural integrity to the brain cells necessary   for cognitive function.

And? It can boost your 
mood! These nutrients are commonly found in nuts,   flaxseed, and fish.
Uh oh.   Did somebody say fish? Do you mean goldfish? 
Uh… Speaking of fish… I’ll be right back. Hehe. Thanks for watching and learning more about 
mental health and psychology Psych2Goers!   Which habits will you enact? And which bad habits 
are you guilty of? Let us know in the comments. If you found this video helpful, 
don’t forget to click the like button   and share this video with a friend. 
Subscribe to Psych2Go and hit the   notification bell icon for more content like 
this! And as always, thanks for watching! Thanks for watching! Video by Psych2go..

As found on YouTube

The ECB's Supervisory Board works with national
supervisors … … to maintain the security of Europe's banking system
. A chairman shall be appointed every five years. How does this work? 1. The post shall be made public. Any European citizen can apply … … with serious experience in banking and
finance. 2. The Governing Council of the ECB shall select the most suitable
candidates, … … in consultation with the Supervisory Board and the European
Parliament. The Governing Council of the ECB then proposes the
final candidate. 3. The European Parliament shall invite the candidate to a hearing
and then vote. To succeed, the candidate must win the support
of the EP majority. 4. The final approval shall be given to the EU Member States
… … through the Council of the EU. The Chairman of the Supervisory Board may not hold the
office for more than one term. Towards the end, the search begins for the next candidate
… … to lead banking supervision in Europe … … and to contribute to the security of our banking
system.

European Central Bank
Banking Supervision.

As found on YouTube

closed the infantile i
want to sell again what to play in walking kal-el illusion of fluruguay the
rio raba led and look only pulled me and bill 2 very fast in adm don't miss you make me
happy if the lion team where this year will put it
by english series if it's real because i 'm an idiot would the money in the sun or
arrival of love film channel gas law in rome he remembered stay is a grandson's game
to help the expense is in le mans it was bill keller no neves gamer in one
shopping da and the idea of a suit of somet ing more will not happen no on
will provide internet on a life ews site is no that is not william ward's father well ell be show now i didn't get spain
let's get it i want boissiere rafael go no
bb in the greatest love nose to light slightly occurred at 10min he
gave muse gamito and gamito román riquelme gobbi that sheltered villages with the scene let the
faith me august gas beautiful clothes olympic team party of thousands does not beat the
guinness book of raúl de Quero boi biolife two kill bill of forum ca rdio
bichos I turned on the tv paulo ten thousand flowers billion of a rocket
black maria or politically sprague your celtic life nobody being boring iron
midnight what is the name of a century of loss product is in the book the legacy
reveals while in lisbon noel i like it and my uncle denis ex elvia help

As found on YouTube

So let us go into those 16 steps one by one. Step number one was to form a team and I mentioned
that the team has to be multidisciplinary. What disciplines do you need in a medical
device innovation? I would say 4 critical disciplines. That should be one person in the team who
knows Bio. It could be a doctor, it could be a Biomedical
engineer. Or some who knows human anatomy. Number 2 you need is a creative person, a
designer, industrial designer, product designer, creative designer. Ok? If nothing else works, an architect is fine. Anyone who has a creative mind set, who can
make and look and visualise ideas and sketch them. The third we need is electronics. E which is Electronics. With electronics I mean a group of people:
electronics, electrical, computer science, software, IT. All this I would group as E, because if you
do not have E, you cannot use what I told you earlier, those great new technologies,
all of which need electronic and software capabilities. And the fourth one is mechanical, but M also
stands for mechanical, manufacturing, materials and so on. And you need these people in the room, because
they are the ones who will give physical shape to the thing and can actually get it manufactured.

So these 4 are absolutely critical four elements
of a team, of a medical device innovation. Set number two is Clinical Immersion, ok? You cannot sit here and create a medical device
and go into a hospital and tell the doctor, ‘Here is a nice, new, great device. Start using it’. There is a good chance that they will laugh
at you because you never did your homework. What is the problem that they really want
you to solve? Is there an already existing solution? What is the real pain point? So you need to go to hospital, talk to a doctor,
and watch those procedures.

Ok? And please, these should be done with great
care. You have to take prior permission. You cannot just walk in and say I want to
meet you. I want to see you treating patients. Patient data is important, patient privacy
is important, so take care of those things. What are you, when you go to hospitals and
watch the doctors doing either diagnosis or treatment, look at what devices they are using. If you are going to multiple Hospitals, you
see if they are using the same device or different devices. Is there a difference in the time taken for
treatment of diagnosis? The skill level of a doctor? What are the variations of patients and other
complications? etc. This you must watch very carefully. You look at all procedures, diagnosis and
treatment including follow up, see what is happening. What has happened to the patient? Are they comfortable or not comfortable? Are they having pain? Is the doctor having trouble? All those you have to observe carefully. And then ask questions. If you notice something funny here, what is
funny here? ‘Why’ is there 3 times. Why is ‘why’ 3 times? because the doctor
may say that I am having, I need a device for like this, do like this, if you just go
ahead along and start developing that device, you may miss out some great opportunity.

If you do not ask the question why. Ask a doctor why, and he may say, ‘I need
a device to treat this complication’. Then you can ask the doctor why this complication
is happening and he may say, ‘Maybe because of this reason’. And you may finally find that solving this
root cause is better than solving or creating a duplicate device at a lower cost, ‘which
is what most doctors want, ‘Can you make a cheaper version of the existing device’. If you get a cheaper version, you may reduce
cost maybe halfway, maybe one third. You can never bring it on to 1%. But we ask ‘Why’ multiple times and go
to the root cause, you may be able to do the treatment or diagnosis at 100th cost.

It is possible and I will show you an example
of that anyway. So what we say is that whatever you want to
do, define your problem as early as possible, in as few words as possible. We typically say that 10 words is a good target
or less than 10 words. But it must satisfy three criterias as far
as we are concerned in the medical domain. Number 1 is: It should not be vague. Ok? It must always, if you make it vague it is
very difficult to evaluate or find out if the idea is good or bad. So the idea must be very clear. Number 2: It must not point to a solution. You cannot say treat this thing using ultrasound. You cannot tell this: How to solve the problem. Tell us what the problem is, do not tell us
how to solve the problem in the problem definition. Number 3: By asking ‘Why’ multiple times,
go to the root cause. So, let me give an example of what it, how
it should be.

In my opinion, a good problem definition must
have 3 things. It must have a ‘Desired Outcome’ which
is what you want. It must have some ‘Clinical Need’ because
you also mentioned why you need that, and also in some way you define, who is the ‘Target
Domain’, what it means is, who is that? An example, if you say: I want a portable
cabinet to safely store medicines in rural hospitals, it has taken care of the 3 things. What I want is a portable cabinet that is
my Desired Outcome. Why do I need it? To store medicines; And for whom it is meant? Rural hospitals. This is a reasonably good example of a well
defined problem statement. Step number 4: Concept and feasibility. The issue many times with engineers is that
they fall in love with an idea.

You generate a concept and somehow you latch
onto that, and your mind blanks out to anything else that may be out there which may be better
than that. Ok? So what we say is, do not fall in love, be
very clinical about it and pass it through 4 filters. I have 4 filters. Filter Number 1, is there is significant local
market requirement for that. If there is no market for that, why are you
doing this project? Number (Filter) 2: Have a value proposition:
the feasibility of doing something much greater, not 10%, 20% improvement, that is not worth
it. Ok? Can I make it 10 times, 20 times better, faster,
easier or less expensive. The third thing is: Capability of doing so. If you do not have the right kind of materials
and skills and equipment and so on, you cannot do that and expertise. There is no point starting something which
will take the next 20 years to develop. Because by 20 years everything will change
anyway, so no point in doing something, which takes so much time.

So, do with your capabilities what you can
put a market in the next 2, 3, 4 years maximum. But the 4th one is: The full time commitment
of the innovator as well as stakeholders. In the medical domain, we have doctors many
times coming to us and they say that, ‘There is a great problem. Why don't you solve that?’ We ask the doctors usually, ‘Sir, will you
give us one hour time every week? Either you come to our lab, and give us feedback
or we will come to your hospital and tell us how we are doing’. If a doctor cannot spend 1 hour per week. There is no way we can commit to developing
the device because in medical devices clinical inputs are absolutely critical. Ok? Now, going to step number 5, we have done
the first four steps which is to do with the Define stage of the project. Now we go to the ‘Develope’ stage of the
project. So very quickly, Detailed design means you
are looking at the overall structure, what are the components into the structure, for
each component, what should be the material, what should be the geometry.

Geometry means the functionality and the features
and material means what properties I want from that particular component. If I want a transparent component, obviously,
materials have to be chosen accordingly. And then you worry about manufacturing and
assembly. When do we make different components? Why cannot we have the whole product be a
single piece? Why do we need multiple pieces? It could be for three or four reasons. You make different pieces when there is a,
by function you need that. Or there is a movement with respect to each
other. Then it is made of different pieces. Or you may need different properties, like
I just mentioned just now, transparency property. Or from a manufacturing point of view you
have to make it separate and assemble it then also you may need to have separate components.

Let me take an example here. This is a process for children with bone cancer. Ok, you can see that there are several components
there. You have the condyle in the middle on which
the kneecap or patella will glide. Then you have the collar kind of thing, which
gives an extension because someone's tumor may be big or small, so you put the extension
pieces to cover the gap.

Then you have a stem, both upper stem and
lower stem which goes into the bone. You drill a hole and the stem goes into the
bone. And then you have a separator. A white piece is a separator, because you
do not want metal to metal rubbing that creates metal particles and metallosis, blood poisoning. So, you want to prevent that by putting a
plastic in between. Now once you know the functionality of each
of the pieces, now you know they have to be separated because there is a movement, or
because by function you want to separate, or you want a buy compatibility which then
goes into the bone, you know you need different materials.

And thereby you choose materials accordingly. So when you have, you need a high biocompatibility,
the stem going into the bone and I want the bone to grip the stem, then you go for titanium
alloy. Where you have movement, and you want an extremely
mirror surface finish because you want a very low coefficient of friction, you go for cobalt
chromium molybdenum. That you want a polymer to separate the tools
metal particle, so you go for not an ordinary polymer, it has to be Ultra High Molecular
Weight polymer. Ok? So this showed you how you decide about the
various components and decide about the material and geometry component based upon the functionality
and properties.

Then you are going to detailed design. We are actually going into the dimensioning,
the actual shape, the actual features and thanks to CAD today it is very easy to visualise,
model and visualise that. But CAD also allows you to do few other things. Using CAD you actually can give the movement. You can see how it is going to move. Are any parts going to hit each other or hinder
each other. So, we can do motion analysis or kinematic
analysis. We can also do Assembly Sequencing. You can see what sequence to assemble or disassemble. Disassemble for maintenance let us say. And with all these things, in an additional
software called FEA or Finite Element Method, you can actually simulate the loads on the
components and how the component will be stressed. Stresses and strains. The colour coding will tell you that red means
you have high stress. Blue means you have low stress. Where high stress is there you add material,
where you have low stress you remove material and so on. And then you come onto the physical plane,
which is you create a physical prototype. Thanks to 3D printers and multi material 3D
printers, like the one you see there, it is now possible to build very accurate physical
replicas from the CAD models directly, ok? Of course you have support structures which
you have to remove, but you plan very well, you will have minimum support structures and
you can create an assembly model from 3D printed parts.

It can take some loads, but don’t expect
it to take real life loads. It is great to check the form and fit, to
some extent the function also. Not to loadings, but at least some basic loading
functions also you can try. So form check, fit check and partial functionality
check can be done by 3D printed models. Then you go into the functional prototype,
which is the actual materials which you want to use. Whether it is Steel, Cobalt Chromium or Titanium
or any other specific materials, industrial plastics. So, what ends up having is, you have some
function in mind. You create some geometry and material and
tolerances. Based upon these three, you decide a manufacturing
process. So process determines manufacturability. Manufacturability in a very simple sense is:
How easy it is to get the desired quality at the least possible cost. So, you cannot get that, you change your process
or change your geometry or change your material, and that is a cyclic process. So, function prototyping although it is just
two here, it is actually a challenging job.

Step number 9 is about quality. You cannot, you cannot do an innovation game
unless you think about quality and quality management. And if you have a quality management system
in process, what it means in real life is that you have standard operating procedures,
you have some forms, you fill up the forms, someone checks the forms, signs and it becomes
a record. Supposing tomorrow something goes wrong and
you want to trace back saying, ‘What is the reason for that?’, if you have not maintained
any documentation, how will you figure it out? You need to know: What material was used for
that batch? Who made the, who manufactured the part? Who expected the part? You want to look at all the history of the
part. That is not possible unless you maintain records. So what typically in medical device development
you do is, you look at various headings of departments you can say. And for each Department to create a certain
set of Standard Operating Procedure or SOP. Those become forms and records and so on.

Then, we will go to step number 10, which
is your testing in the lab first. Obviously you do not want to put the medical
devices in hospitals before you test in the labs first. You do not take a chance. What it means is that you want to establish
a reasonable evidence of safety. There is no guarantee that even after lab
testing it will be perfectly fine in the real world. At least you have some reasonable level of
safety, ok? And so you subject it to various kinds of
tests.

You have what is called a biocompatibility
test, especially if you are using a new material, OK? Or a new composition of a material. You changed slightly composition or the composition
of structure changed because of the manufacturing process, you will have to check for what is
called as biocompatibility, ok? Essentially it means toxicity testing, skin
sensitivity testing, it should not cause cancer. So these are all tested in the laboratories. Other than that you also test for mechanical,
which is, it should not break, it should not bend, it should not collapse and all that. Mechanical testing also includes that when
you drop it, it should not fracture. It also could also mean that if you put it
through water jets it should not leak. You also have to make sure that the device
will not stop functioning because of some electromagnetic fields or power fluctuations,
nor the device will cause disturbance to other devices in the room.

In either way, you have to test it for electromagnetic
compatibility and electromagnetic interference. And finally if it pass all the things, you
can also try it on dead animals for which the regulations are not that strict, but real
animal testing is very highly regulated and controlled. It is only done in specific institutions without
permission. But it is possible to do animal trials for
certain classes of products. You need not test everything on animals, only
those which go into human body that you may need to test on animals. After you do all those things, then it's the
time for the human related trials.

You actually try the device on human patients,
but not unsuspecting patients. You have to make sure you have criteria for
inclusion and exclusions. What kind of patients will try the device? Number 1. Number 2, you will look at Consent forms. The patient should be informed that it is
a new device, and why should he/she try the device unless it is better than the existing
devices. And if anything goes wrong he/she should have
insurance. And if you say everything goes wrong, you
say we will give the current best standard treatment back to you, which is we will put
him/her back on their feet anyway. So you take care of your patient’s safety
at any cost. So safety is one part of thing and number
2, why you are doing clinical trials is to look at the efficacy of the device. Is it really functioning the way you are promising
the way it will function? Better? Faster? Easier? Whatever it is. Besides these, there are two more things. Specially, if it is a diagnostic device, you
also worry about what is called Sensitivity and Specificity.

If you are trying to screen or diagnose a
person for disease, you want to make sure that there are No False Negatives. If someone has a disease, the device must
be able to catch the person with the disease. No false negative. It says that disease is not there but the
disease is there, then it is a risky part. Similarly is also specificity. If someone does not have a disease, the device
should not say that he has a disease. That is false positive. Then he will go for unnecessary treatment. We do not want that either. So this is your four criteria or four basic
thumb rules for human clinical trials. Then, you are getting into the 12th step which
is your Certification. Most academics give up by this stage.

Certification is a long procedure. You have to submit a lot of documentation
to say that you have done all this design properly, testing properly, in the lab, biocompatibility,
all the tests, and maybe animal trials, human trials and all the results of that. Then the Government will say that, ‘Ok fine. Looks like it is safe and efficient. Now you go ahead and manufacture it’.

License to Manufacture and Market is what
is implied by this Licensing. Now licensing depends on the class of the
device. If you have a low risk device, regulations
are not very strict as long as you are doing basic, good practices of safety and cleanliness
and quality management system and all that, Government will not come in the way. Maybe you should, still for safety, should
go and say, ‘Please give a No Objection Certificate’, NOC. That is also for the class B, which is low
to medium risk. But when it comes to medium to high and high
risk devices, then its procedures are far most stricter.

It also specifies: Where are you doing? What is the manufacturing process? Your quality checks in the manufacturing processes? Your site plan? Who are your neighbouring manufacturers? If right next to your site there is someone
else who is producing poisonous or toxins. Then you don't want to be manufacturing in
this site either. So, your neighbouring sites also come into
consideration when you have to get a license for manufacturing.

So these are all done and for class division
which is high risk, like implants, the Government will not touch, they will actually send an
Inspector to see that what you saying on paper is, actually true in reality. So, all this put together, if you pass the
whole thing then you get your device certification for manufacturing and market. Now you go to the last stage of the life cycle. The last stage is Deploy, which is putting
the device into the practical Hospitals. So here is where you need to give a right
to yourself and exclude others from manufacturing and copying your device. That is what we get from Intellectual Property
Rights, primary of which is patent.

What is a patent? It is an exclusive right given by the Government
of a particular country, to a manufacturer in that country so that only that manufacturer
can manufacture and sell it legally. And other manufacturers sell it, that is illegal. And they can be taken to court. But what do you give in return to the Government
is a full disclosure of the innovation. You describe in great detail, how your device
works? What are the components? How do they work with each other? Entire drawing, explanation you give it and
file it, and it is publicly available.

You may get scared. I am giving away all my knowledge to the public,
but because it is given and then the right patent is given to you, even if it is in the
public, no one can copy it. If someone copies exactly you can take the
person to court and ask for damages. But what can be patented? only those ideas which are novel, those ideas
which are useful and non obvious. You cannot say that, draw something and say
that this is, I want to file a patent for that. If someone else also can come up with a similar
idea very easily, it is an obvious idea. So obvious ideas cannot be patented. Combinations of A and B do not become a C
and C becomes a patent, that is not possible. They are all obvious things.

So, Novel, useful and non obvious, and patenting
is not a simple thing, it is a long process. Until recently it would take 8 to 10 years
to get a patent in India ok. Now they are reducing the cycle time 4-5 years,
hopefully it will come down 2 to 3 years in the next few years. The two major steps in the patenting as far
as innovators are concerned. The first thing is to file a provisional patent. The moment you have a reasonably clear idea
about your innovation and you have a sketch and drawing and you can explain that, you
file a provisional patent. Then you have one whole year in your hands
to change the drawings and file what is called as a complete specification along with claims.

You claim that this is my innovation. This, you know, this feature is my innovation. So you have one whole year to change the thing,
because do not delay the thing. The moment you think you have a good idea,
someone else may also file the patent, who knows. You think you are new, someone else may also
be thinking of the same idea at the same time. Ok? (Video Start Time: 21:14)
(Video End Time: 21:29) So, filing provisional patents, filing complete
specifications are two critical steps for an innovator.

Rest of the things are usually taken care
of by the lawyer. Even patent drafting is done by a lawyer but
in consultation with you. Rest of the thing, filing fees, chasing the
thing and hearing and publication, all that the patent attorneys will take care of. Again Business model is a big area and you
can spend a whole semester in multiple courses or we can go and do an IAM or an MBA to learn
business modeling. All you need to worry about is four things. Number 1: You worry about what it is you are
offering to customers? Is it a product? Is it a service? Is it a product, or a one time product or
is it a product on a multiple times? Or is it a lease? Number 2: Who are the customers? In the medical domain, who is the customer? Customers can be different from the user.

Users can be doctors or a patient or a family
member. The customer is the one who is paying for
the device. The paying could be either by the patient,
or by the hospital, or by insurance agency, or by Government. So that is the customer. Or Hospitals are also maybe buying, once in
a while large equipment. And then you have a supply chain and distribution
channel. And of course as a startup you always have
options. You can say, you can take a technology yourself,
license it to yourself and you start a company yourself, great. Or you may say we will license the technology
to some other company or if you are very benevolent, you say, ‘Ok, I will put my design on the
open source, let anyone copy’. There is also one more option: You can give
it to a ‘for profit’ or ‘not for profit’ company.

We can give it to an NGO, which will supply
the products, manufacturer, supplier, zero cost or very low cost to the end users. Now last but one is Funding. People have tried to look at the causes or
failures of innovation companies. And they found that the failures could be
for many reasons, but the top three reasons which come up is: One is that the team is
not so strong. The team, complementary skills, or leadership,
or maybe size of the team, whatever, team dynamics is one major cause of failure specially
in India. Reason number 2 is that: Product-market fit. And we have been telling all from the beginning:
if you are solving the wrong problem, or you develop something and you think people should
just, everyone should buy this one, but no one is buying it, which means something is
wrong. What you thought people would buy, they are
not buying it, it means the product and market fit is not good. But a third reason for failure is: Lack of
funds. Exactly the time that you want to go and expand
a company or buy some equipment and hire some people, you have zero cash left.

And then, you have no option but to wind it
down. So typically you need money for four stages
of the company. One is to establish a minimum viable product
which can be actually sold in the market. Typically, this you have to fund it yourself,
out of your own personal, family, friends and whatever. If you are working in a lab, and the lab has
a project, maybe the projects can fund that. Second thing is you want to establish a minimum
viable market. You would actually go and sell that to territories,
target customers or users. Ok? Then you know, ‘OK, it is selling. People are talking about it’. And what do they like, what they do not like
about it. A minimum viable market. If you have funds yourself and you can bootstrap,
nothing like it. Otherwise, you can go towards what is called
Angel Funds. Private, it could be private people or the
Government, also has got several arms of the Government which is giving angel funding to
you. The Third thing is to establish a suitable
business entity.

We actually want to start a company, hire
a space, hire people, hire furniture, hire equipment, basic things. That needs money, a few million rupees typical. Now there if you do not have funds yourself
or the Government or something like that, then you look at what is called as, there
are many resources, I'm just giving one one example here, Venture Funding is one source
of it. And once you start selling and it is doing
fine and all that, but now you want to go International, or you now want to now start,
add one more manufacturing plant or four more manufacturing plants, put distributors in
all the states or across the world, you need a large amount of money. Your profit margins are not sufficient to
expand like that. Then you have to go to some other sources
of funding. There are many other sources again. You can do IPO, or you can go for Private
Equity or you can go for Mergers Acquisitions, several examples are like that.

So, this slide was to, just to give a hint
of the need for funding, and stages of funding and some examples of fundings in each stage. The last step is continuous improvement. Life never stops at version 1. You have defined an unmet need. Developed a novel solution. Delivered and tested the product and Deployed
in the market. Great, but life does not stop there. Usually when we deploy in the market, you
have customer feedback coming in, or complaints, or suggestions and that gives you seed for
going back to defining a new product, for new version and life continues like that..

As found on YouTube

[Upbeat Music] Hey Psych2Goers, have you ever thought about 
joining our team of animators or writers?   Or perhaps you want to start an 
animation channel of your own?   Are you looking through as many youtube 
channels as you could for tutorials and tips,   but wasted a lot of time on some not so helpful 
ones? Skillshare is a great place where you can   learn new things with their online classes, 
and they have courses on animation as well!   Click the link in the description below to 
get your free trial of Skillshare Premium! Hey Psych2goers and welcome back to our channel! This video is suggested by one of our 
viewers, Army & Blink! Thanks for the suggestion! Now, lets get started. Have you been wondering if your mental 
health is possibly getting worse?   Mental health, just like physical health, 
affects everyone whether you are suffering   from a mental illness or not.

Your mental and 
emotional health can fluctuate from time to time   depending on the stresses going on in 
your life. So, it’s always a good idea to   check in with yourself and try to gauge the 
direction your mental health is going in.   With that said, here are ten signs that 
your mental health is getting worse. NUMBER ONE. You’re losing interest in the little things. Do your favorite activities suddenly seem meh 
to you? If you’ve started to lose excitement for   life’s little things, then this is a sign that 
your mental health might not be at its best.   You might be feeling this way because 
of an overload of stress in your life,   or you’re feeling overwhelmed with all 
of your responsibilities and to-do lists.   When you lose interest and don’t enjoy the hobbies 
and activities that you once did, this could also   be a warning sign of depression. If you think this 
could be what's happening to you, know that you   are not alone, and that help is just around the 
corner.

Talk with a trusted friend or a family   member, or a mental health professional to get the 
help you need to navigate these troubling times. NUMBER TWO. You get overwhelmed easier. Do you find that you’ve been getting 
overwhelmed more often than normal?  When you have a to-do list for two 
or three tasks, does it feel more like   you have ten things to do? When you start to 
get overwhelmed easily with everyday things,   this could be a sign of worsening mental health. 
According to Psychotherapist, Sheri Jacobson,   feeling mentally overwhelmed could be an internal 
reaction to excessive outside stress.

To help   cope with this overwhelming feeling, you can 
journal, meditate, or practice mindfulness. NUMBER THREE. You don’t feel like 
socializing that much anymore.  Does it feel more exhausting to 
interact with people nowadays?   Regardless of whether you’re an introvert, 
extrovert, or somewhere in between,   we all have a standard comfort level 
when it comes to social interaction.   If you feel yourself slipping below your comfort 
level, pay attention to this. Remember that   even if it doesn’t feel that way at the moment, 
interacting with people can help boost your mood! We want to mention that we’re happy to have skillshare as a sponsor today because they really promote the idea of a self-made you. Are you planning to learn a new skill, perhaps on illustration, animation, or writing? It would be great if everything you need is all in one place, right? Well, Skillshare has thousands of catered courses across all kinds of topics like design, business, tech, and more. There is truly something for everyone. Skillshare has a great intro class on animation that we really recommend. The course is called “Creativity Unleashed: Discover, Hone, and Share Your Voice Online” by Johannes Fast.

If any of you are interested in learning basic animation, I recommend you go check it out in the link below! The first 1000 people will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium and after that, it’s only around $10 a month. Let us know what Skillshare courses you’re taking in the comments below. FOUR. You don’t have a consistent sleep schedule. Have you developed a seemingly random sleep 
schedule? Despite wanting to get up at a certain   time in the morning, do you wind up sleeping all 
day? When you have an irregular sleep schedule,   this could signify increased stress in your 
life and a decline in your mental health.   If you're struggling to regulate your sleep, 
you can try setting up a routine to wake up   and go to bed at the same time every 
day.

This will get your body back into   its regular rhythm of sleep and wake cycles, 
therefore no longer causing sleep disturbance. FIVE. You always feel drained. Despite getting enough sleep and eating well, 
do you constantly feel exhausted or drained?   According to Healthline, mental exhaustion 
can set in when you are under long-term stress   and this type of exhaustion can make it feel 
like you are trying to move up a mountain.   More than just feeling tired, when you are this 
drained and constantly exhausted, you might   struggle to get anything done.

Healthline 
suggests practicing gratitude, relaxation,   and yoga, as well as talking to a mental 
health professional to provide medication   for you if it’s needed. Treatment plans will 
look different for everyone, but regardless,   there is a way that will work best for you to help 
pull yourself out of this state of exhaustion. SIX. Your anxiety seems to be increasing. Do you wake up in the morning with a crushing 
sense of anxiety that stays with you all day?   Does this anxiety cast a cloud over your 
daily activities? Worsening anxiety can   often coincide with worsening mental health. 
Anxiety affects us all, whether or not you   happen to suffer from a particular anxiety 
disorder. It’s important to monitor your   anxiety levels because a noticeable change 
can tell you a lot about your mental health.   Anxiety is a response to stress and it can cause 
a variety of psychological and physical symptoms.   When you feel overly anxious, you might 
notice that your heart rate speeds up   and your breathing rate increases, and 
you might experience a bout of nausea SEVEN.

You feel mentally 
and emotionally scattered. Do you feel like there are so many things 
happening around you, but you can’t focus   on any of them? If so, you’re not alone. From 
time to time, it’s normal to feel this way,   especially when you are going through 
higher amounts of stress. However,   if you are feeling scattered and like things are 
spinning out of control, this could be a sign that   your mental health is under strain. According to 
Psychologist Rick Hanson from Psychology Today,   you probably feel scattered because you are 
struggling to find your center. This means that in   order for your brain to feel more organized, you 
need to feel at peace within yourself.

Practicing   mindfulness, such as yoga and meditation, are 
great places to start on the road to inner peace. EIGHT. You can’t seem to pay attention. Do you have a harder time 
focusing and staying on task?   When you’re reading, is it hard to comprehend? 
Do you have to reread the same passage   over and over again? Though it could relate to 
potential psychological disorders such as ADHD,   depression, or anxiety, it is also likely that 
a lack of focus can be due to stress or poor   self-care. It can be frustrating to start losing 
focus so frequently and those feelings are valid   and normal.

Remember to take care of yourself 
and, as you recover, know that help is available. NINE. You might be struggling 
with your impulse control. Are you acting more on impulse? Are you 
possibly indulging in things you shouldn’t?   Whether it’s retail therapy, or binging all of 
your shows, or playing video games for hours,   when you act more on impulse like this, it 
can signify worsening mental health. You   might pick up some unhealthy habits 
as a way to cope with life stress,   fulfill yourself, or distract yourself 
from a major issue going on in your life.   Journaling, mindfulness, and therapy are great 
ways to start uncovering some of these issues! TEN. You are struggling to feel grounded. Similar to feeling centered, when you 
are grounded, you are feeling confident   and balanced within yourself. According to Irene 
Langeveld, an energy worker, and meditation coach,   grounding starts with the root chakra at the 
base of the spine, known to help you feel secure.   Activities that connect your body with 
the world around you– such as hiking,   meditating, or walking outside –are all great 
ways to help you find your sense of grounding! Can you relate to any of these points made in 
this video? Do you think your mental health   could be slipping? If so, know that 
there is help you can reach out to.   You can talk to a trusted friend, family member, 
or a mental health therapist for support.   Please like and share this video if it helped 
you and you think it can help someone else, too!   The studies and references used are listed 
in the description below.

Don’t forget to   hit the subscribe button for more Psych2Go videos. 
Thank you for watching! We’ll see you next time! Video by Psych2go..

As found on YouTube

New guidelines for USA visa for
the year 2022 are recently announced and this got a lot of
people excited. A lot of people are wondering whether they
qualify for an interview waiver. In this video, I'm going to
demystify all this hype and help you understand this updates. So
keep on watching ♫♫ Hi, guys, my name is Shachi and I'm a Travel
Visa Coach. In this channel, you will find tons of useful videos
on the US visa process. There is a separate playlist for f1 visa
for J1 visa for B1/B2 visa and new playlist coming up for H and
L visa. So make sure that you subscribe and stay tuned. Now in
the last two months, getting an interview of slot has been an
absolute nightmare, we can totally understand all the pain
that most of you are going through to get that coveted
interview slot and in this context, any use of interview
waiver can seem like a huge relief and I think that is
something that people were hoping from the new update,
which was put out by the embassy.

Unfortunately, it
doesn't quite live up to the hype, especially for Indians and
this video, I'm going to explain exactly why and also help you
understand whether you do have that slim chance of qualifying
for interview waiver. So let's get started. In the description
box below, there is a very useful tool called the interview
waiver check. I've created this tool to help you understand
whether you qualify for an interview waiver or not. So just
enter few of your details and this will immediately tell you
whether all these updates apply to you or not. So the update
essentially talks about two different ways in which you can
qualify for an interview waiver and let's understand both of
these in depth. The first one is by being a citizen or national
of a country, which falls under the interview waiver program.

So
the US has an interview waiver program, which has a list of
about 40 countries in it and if you are a citizen or national of
any of these countries, then you automatically qualify for an
interview waiver. Now the list of these 40 countries is there
in the description box below there is a link, you can click
on that and view that list. But India, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Nepal, the Middle East countries, African countries do
not fall under this list of 40 countries. So which means that
bulk of you who are watching this video today will not
qualify for an interview waiver under the first condition. This
brings us to the second part and this is essentially the main
update, which has been put out by the US Embassy and let's
understand this in detail. So the second update applies to the
work visas, that is H and O it applies to the P and Q visas. It
also applies to the Student and Exchange visas, that is F and J
and it also applies to all the dependents which come under
these visa categories. So essentially, it covers the bulk
of the non immigrant visas to the US.

Now this second update
lists three conditions, and you need to qualify or gather you
need to fulfill all of these three conditions to be eligible
for an interview waiver. The first one is that you need to
have a valid US visa issued. So a US visa is to be issued to you
this visa needs to be valid, this visa can be in any
category, they do not restrict any category of visa under this.
The second condition is that either you should not have any
history of yours visa rejection, or that rejection needs to be
rectified.

That means that either you never had a US visa
rejection or even if you had a US visa rejection, subsequently
you reapply again, and then eventually got the visa. So just
to explain this further, let's say that you applied for a B2
visa, and that visa was rejected. So if that rejection
is still valid, you do not qualify for the interview
waiver. But if you apply for the visa again, and subsequently
your B2 Visa Card accepted, then you do qualify for the interview
waiver. Please know that you really have to understand that
the first and the second points are similar, but they are
independent of each other.

Which means that you need to have a
valid US visa at the same time, no history of rejection under
any category. So let's say that you have a valid F visa, but you
have a B2 visa rejection, which eventually did not get the B2
visa, you still don't qualify for the interview waiver. So
these are the intricacies which needs to be really understood
regarding the first and the second condition and after this
comes the third condition, and this is where the gray area
really lies.

So this condition says that there should not be
any apparent or potential in eligibility. Now what exactly do
they mean by this apparent or potential intelligibility is not
spelled out. Just like how in US visa denials. You're not really told the
reason for denial. Similarly, what exactly is this potential
or apparent in eligibility is not clear as of now. This is
totally up to the discretion of the visa officer, the consular
officer, most likely they will look at details of your
education, your work profile your travel history, to
determine whether you have any potential or apparent in
eligibility in the coming few days or weeks, I think more
clarity will be given on this criteria and of course, I'll be
tracking it on this channel and bring it and give it to you like
here.

So, these are the three conditions which need to be
satisfied and like I said before, all of these three
should be valid for you to qualify for an interview waiver.
Now, given the nature of these conditions, I believe that bulk
of people who will be applying for the US visa do not really
meet these criteria, which means that we are back to square one.
So even at the end of all of this, if you're still confused,
whether you do qualify for an interview waiver or not, you can
check the link in the description box below, there is
a very useful tool called the interview waiver check and I
have created this tool, which will, in a few seconds tell you
whether you qualify for interview waiver or not.

So you
just need to enter your few details and check it and this
will tell you whether you qualify for an interview waiver.
So in conclusion, most of you will still need to appear for an
interview and for this, I would advise that don't give up keep
tracking availability of slot there are two hacks or other two
methods, which really works. The first one is to be part of
telegram groups. So there are a lot of telegram groups where
people are updating the availability of slots, the time
in which the slots get released, so do join these groups, make
use of the information there and try to book a slot. The link for
all these telegram groups, as mentioned in the description box
below. The second way is to get an emergency appointment. So a
lot of emergency appointments are being released and this is
again, a way in which you can try to get an interview date.
How exactly to go about this process, there is a separate
video on this, I'm gonna link this video above, make sure that
you check it out and if you need my help in drafting your
emergency visa application, do get in touch with me and once
you have that interview slot, you really need to go ahead and
smash that interview.

For an in depth interview prep, you can
either book a one to one consultation session with me or
you can take a mock interview. Both of these are tremendously
useful and it'll really help you in a single US visa interview.
So I mentioned a ton of resources. The link for all of
this is right below in the description box. So make sure
that you check it out. That's all for today all the new
updates will be tracked very very closely by me and it will
be brought to you right here on this channel. So make sure that
you subscribe and press the bell icon so you don't miss on any
updates and please do like this video, so that I know that you
found it useful. If you have any more doubts or questions feel
free to leave them in the comment section below. You can
also DM me on Instagram my instagram handle is
@shachi.mall.

That's all for today's signing off for now.
Wish you all a very happy new year and let's hope that the
entire drama around the slot availability comes to an end. So
see you in the next one. Bye.

As found on YouTube

GUESTS. THEREFORE IT IS TIME FOR MEMBER STATEMENTS. THE MEMBER FROM KITCHENER. >> THANK YOU, SPEAKER, IT IS WITH APPRECIATION I THINK THE GREATER ESSEX SCHOOL BOARD FOR THEIR LENGTHY FIGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO TENDER PROJECTS FAIR AND OPENLY. SINCE 2001 THEY HAVE FOUGHT FOR THEIR RIGHT OF THE BEST QUALITY WORK FOR THE BEST PRICE. A SCHOOL BOARD IS CLEARLY NOT A CORRECTION COMPANY — CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND CERTIFICATION MEANS CLOSED TENDERING.

AFTER THREE ATTEMPTS BY THE SCHOOL BOARD TO PROVE IT MET THE DEFINITION OF A NONCONSTRUCTION EMPLOYER, A DECISION FINALLY MEANS THE SCHOOL BOARD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ARE OPEN TO ALL QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS. SO AREA CONTRACTORS, HEAD OVER TO THE BOARD WEBSITE AND START BIDDING AS GREATER ESSEX IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS. AND WHILE WE THANK THE BOARD FOR THEIR PERSISTENCE, THEIR STRUGGLE FOR FAIRNESS ONLY FURTHER HIGHLIGHTS THE FLAWED LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWS SCHOOL BOARDS AND MUNICIPALITIES TO BE CERTIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE. SINCE THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT REJECTED MY FAIR AND OPENING TENDERING ACT, THE CLOSED TENDERING DRIVES DOWN COMPETITION IN HAMILTON, TORONTO, IN SAULT STE. MARIE, IN MY REGION OF WATERLOO WHILE DRIVING UP COST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY TO THANK THE SCHOOL BOARD BUT ALSO TO BUILD ON THEIR EFFORTS. I REMAIN DEDICATES TO RESTORING FAIR TENDERING, SPEAKER, AND LOOK FORWARD TO TAKING FURTHER STEPS THAT WILL MAKE IT CLEAR RULES FOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES SHOULD NOT APPLY TO MUNICIPALITIES AND SCHOOL BOARDS.

THANK YOU. [Applause] >> The Speaker: THANK YOU. FURTHER MEMBER STATEMENTS. THE MEMBER FROM DANFORTH. >> THANK YOU, SPEAKER. SPEAKER, OVER THE PAST TWO WEEKS TWO OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE HAVE REPORTED ON THE LIBERAL'S CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN. SPEAKER, NEITHER SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN AS WRITTEN WILL ALLOW ONTARIO TO MEET ITS 2020 TARGET TO PROTECT US FROM CLIMATE CHANGE, AND, SPEAKER, THAT'S A BIG DEAL. WE ARE APPROACHING SUBSTANTIAL CLIMATE TIPPING POINTS THAT COULD PUT US AT GREATER PERIL. THIS IS NOT A TIME TO PLAY GAMES. BOTH THE AUDITOR GENERAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VIABILITY AND CREDIBILITY OF A NUMBER OF THE MAJOR PROGRAMS THAT THE LIBERAL CLIMATE PLAN CLAIMS WILL ALLOW THEM TO MEET THEIR TARGETS BY 2020. IT APPEARS THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT IS PLANNING TO PAPER OVER THE GAP BETWEEN THE STORY THEY TELL AND THE REALITY BY ALLOWING THE PURCHASE OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS WORTH OF CHEAP CARBON ALLOWANCES FROM CALIFORNIA AND THEN SAYING THE JOB IS DONE.

SPEAKER, THAT STRATEGY IS IRRESPONSIBLE. IT DRAINS MONEY FROM ONTARIO, AND, FRANKLY, COULD DISCREDIT CLIMATE ACTION IN THIS PROVINCE. I KALIN — CALL ON THE LIBERALS TO CHANGE THEIR CLIMATE PLAN TO FOCUS ON REAL EMISSION CUTS OF ONTARIO AND FOCUS ON PROTECTING THIS PROVINCE FROM DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE. THANK YOU, SPEAKER. >> The Speaker: FURTHER MEMBER STATEMENTS. >> THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER, I RISE TODAY TO SPEAK ABOUT THE RECENT BASIC INCOME PILOT CONSULTATION IN MY RIDING. IN 2016 BUDGET THE GOVERNMENT MADE A COMMITMENT TO FURTHER ADDRESS POVERTY IN ONTARIO BY COMMITTING TO A BASIC INCOME FOR ONTARIANS. WE ARE LOOKING TO TEST A BASIC INCOME WOULD BE A BETTER WAY TO DELIVER INCOME SUPPORT WHILE IMPROVING THE EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES FOR ONTARIANS. THE IDEA OF BASIC INCOME IS GENERATING INTEREST HERE IN CANADA AND AROUND THE WORLD. THE MINISTER OF COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY HAVE BEGUN CONSULTATION WITH PEOPLE ACROSS ONTARIO TO GET FEEDBACK FROM PEOPLE.

THE CONSULTATION HELD IN MY RIDING LAST TUESDAY WAS THE SECOND CONSULTATION OF 14 TO BE HELD. 78 PEOPLE PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSULTATION AND TO DATE, Mr. SPEAKER, BASIC INCOME HAS RECEIVED THE MOST FEEDBACK EVER SEEN DURING A CONSULTATION ON ONTARIO.CA. OVER 20,000 RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON THE SURVEY ONLINE ALONE. I WANT TO THANK THE MINISTERS FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP IN IMPLEMENTING A NEW APPROACH TO IMPROVING INCOME SECURITY. I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE STAFF FOR PARTICIPATING LAST WEEK IN CONSULTATION. Mr. SPEAKER, I BELIEVE THAT WORKING THROUGH WITH ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION AND ALSO LOOKING INTO INNOVATIVE APPROACHES DELIVERING — >> THANK YOU >> WE CAN IMPROVE THE LIVES OF ALL ONTARIANS. THANK YOU. >> The Speaker: THE MEMBER FROM NIPISSING >> THANK YOU, AND GOOD AFTERNOON, SPEAKER. COMMUNITIES IN MY RIDING ARE SEEKING CONFIRMATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT ON THE STABILITY FOR THE PROVINCIAL TAX CREDIT FOR THE FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY IN ONTARIO. YOU MAY REMEMBER IN THE 2014 BUDGET THE GOVERNMENT PLANNED TO CHANGE THE TAX CREDIT BUT ON THIS SIDE OF THE CHAMBER WE FOUGHT HARD TO KEEP IT IN PLACE.

WE WORK WITH INDUSTRY, WON THE BATTLE, AND THE FILM INDUSTRY HAS GOTTEN BENEFITS ACROSS THE PROVINCE, PARTICULARLY HOME IN THE NORTH. JUST LAST WEEK A NEW PRODUCTION ANNOUNCE IT HAD WOULD BE COMING TO NORTH BAY. THIS IS WHAT PROMPTED THE MUNICIPALITIES OF EAST FARRIS AND NORTH BAY TO PASS RESOLUTIONS HIGHLIGHTING THEIR CONCERNS. GIVEN THEIR UNCERTAINTY AND THE GOVERNMENTS DEDICATION TO THE FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY, THEY CALL FOR A PUBLIC COMMITMENT TO THE STABILITY OF THE PROVINCIAL TAX CREDIT SYSTEM AND THE NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND TO ENSURE CONTINUED, FOREIGN, AND DOMESTIC INVESTMENT IN NORTHERN PRODUCTION ALONG WITH INCREASED WORK OPPORTUNITIES FOR NORTHERN ONTARIO RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES AND BACKGROUNDS.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE GOVERNMENT REAFFIRM CONFIDENCE IN THE FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY AND SUPPORT CONTINUED GROWTH IN THE SECTOR. THANK YOU. >> The Speaker: THANK YOU. FURTHER MEMBER STATEMENTS. >> SPEAKER, SINCE THIS IS MY LAST MEMBER STATEMENT BEFORE THE HOUSE RISES, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WISH EVERYONE HERE AND AT HOME A MERRY CHRISTMAS, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY I WOULD LIKE TO, IN ADVANCE, THANK ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO WHILE WE ARE ENJOYING OURSELVES OVER THE HOLIDAYS, THE PEOPLE WHO WORK HARD TO KEEP US HAPPY, HEALTHY, AND SAFE. ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY AND NOT ONLY IN HEALTH CARE BUT EVEN IN CORRECTIONS AND ALL THE PEOPLE YOU DON'T THINK ABOUT, THOSE PEOPLE WHO WORK NOT ONLY DURING THE HOLIDAYS BUT WORK EVERY DAY BUT SPECIFICALLY DURING THE HOLIDAYS AND COMING FROM AN AGRICULTURAL BACKGROUND, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS TIME TO THANK THE FARMERS OF ONTARIO, SPECIFICALLY THE LIVESTOCK FARMERS WHO ON CHRISTMAS DAY WILL BE FEEDING, MILKING, DOING ALL THE THINGS IT TAKES TO KEEP ANIMALS HAPPY AND HEALTHY, AND LASTLY BUT NOT LEAST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE WHO IS ON CALL ON CHRISTMAS DAY, BE IT A PLUMBER, ELECTRICIAN, BE IT A VET, ANYONE WHO IS ON CALL, WE ALL — I KNOW IN MY BUSINESS I HAVE HAD A FEW TIMES THE VET ON CHRISTMAS DAY PULLING A CALF AND IT IS JOLLY, I CAN TELL YOU, BUT BOTH PLACES THERE ARE PLACES THEY WOULD RATHER BE, AND IT'S A GREAT TIME OF YEAR, BUT WE ARE PROTECTED BY SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE PROVINCE AND I AM HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THAT.

THANK YOU. >> The Speaker: THE MEMBER FROM — >> THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER, I AM PRIVILEGED TO WELCOME GLOBAL MEDIC TO QUEEN'S PARK TODAY. THEY ARE A NONPARTISAN REGISTERED CANADIAN CHARITY THAT RUNS CAPACITY BILLION PROGRAMS IN POST-CONFLICT FIRST NATION HADS — AND PROVIDES RELIEF TO DISASTERS. THEIR PRIORITY IS TO SAVE LIFE BY PROVIDING SHORT-TERM RAPID RESPONSE IN THE WAKE OF CRISIS BOTH AT HOME AND ABROAD. GLOBAL MEDIC CAME TO QUEEN'S PARK TODAY FOR THE WELCOME TO CANADA KITS. THEY CONTAIN HOUSEHOLD AND OTHER ITEMS THAT WILL P BE HAND DELIVERED TO FAMILIES THAT HAVE FLED THE VIOLENCE IN SYRIA AND HAVE NEWLY ARRIVED IN CANADA. THE KITS ARE TO BE PACKED BY ALL OF US HERE. I INVITE EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE. I INVITE EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN ROOM 230 ANY TIME DURING THE DAY AND SPEND TIME TO SUPPORT THIS CAUSE.

THIS IS A HANDS-ON OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF US TO SUPPORT THE NEWLY ARRIVED SYRIAN FAMILIES AND WELCOME THEM TO A GREAT PROVINCE. THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER. >> The Speaker: THANK YOU. FURTHER MEMBER STATEMENTS. >> THANK YOU, SPEAKER. I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU A GOOD NEWS STORY FROM WEST SIDE SECONDARY SCHOOL IN ORANGEVILLE. LAST MONTH I VISITED WESTSIDE AS THEY HELD THEIR THINK PINK FUNDRAISER. THEY BEGAN IN 2004 AFTER SEVERAL STAFF WERE DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER. WEST SIDE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS THE TOP SCHOOL FUNDRAISER IN ALL OF CANADA. THIS YEAR MARKED THEIR GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT OF RAISING $100,000 SINCE 2004. EVERYONE WORE A LOT OF PINK TO SHOW THEIR SUPPORT. BRAVE STUDENTS AND STAFF RAISED HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS BY OFFERING TO SHAVE THEIR HEAD OR CUT THEIR HAIR. SOME YOUNG MEN WERE EVEN BRAVE ENOUGH TO HAVE THEIR LEGS WAXED IN PUBLIC. IT WAS A GREAT AFTERNOON AS WE CHEERED ON STUDENTS AND STAFF, BATTLED IT OUT IN A TUG-OF-WAR, BUT THE BIGGEST CHEER OF ALL WAS WHEN WE HEARD WEST SIDE RAISED AN INCREDIBLE $20,000 THIS YEAR. SOMETIMES YOUNG PEOPLE GET ACCUSED OF ONLY CARING ABOUT THEIR INSTAGRAM OR WEEKENDS, WESTSIDE PROVED THEM WRONG.

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE PRINCIPAL, STAFF, AND STUDENTS OF WESTSIDE FOR THEIR FANTASTIC WORK. WELL DONE. [Applause] >> The Speaker: THANK YOU. FURTHER MEMBER STATEMENTS. THE MEMBER FROM KINGSTON AND THE ISLANDS >> THANK YOU, Mr. SPEAKER, WHAT A THRILL IT WAS TO JOIN THE ST. ANDREWS SOCIETY OF KINGS TON AS THEY CELEBRATED 176 YEARS ON NOVEMBER THE 20TH. GUESTS WERE SERVED WITH A TRADITIONAL SCOTTISH FEAST WHICH WAS NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT THE HAGIS, AND MANY WERE DRESSED IN KILTS AND OTHER SCOTTISH AFIRE.

TIRE. AS ALWAYS IT WAS A FESTIVE GATHERING WITH CONVERSATION AND EXCELLENT COMPANY. KINGSTON WELCOMED SCOTTISH IMMIGRANTS INCLUDING MY MOTHER SEEKING BETTER OPPORTUNITIES TO CANADA FOLLOWING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. FOUNDED IN 1840 THE ST. ANDREWS SOCIETY BEGAN AS A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION TO WELCOME SCOTTISH NEWCOMERS HAS AS THEY TRANSITIONED TO LIFE IN KINGSTON. THE SOCIETY PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLL FOSTERING A STRONG SENSE OF COMMUNITY. ST. ANDREWS SOCIETY HAS BEEN ENRICHED BY FAMOUS CHARACTERS INCLUDING SIR JOHN A MCDONALD, AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT OUR CURRENT MEMBERS LIKE JOHN AND OF COURSE ISABELL TURNER WHO INSTILLS THE FEAR OF GOD INTO YOU IF YOU CAN'T ATTEND A DINNER, AND SO MANY OTHER FAMILIES WHO WILL LIKEWISE BE REMEMBERED FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOCIETY. CONGRATULATIONS TO THE ST. ANDREWS SOCIETY FOR 176 YEARS OF SCOTTISH CULTURAL TRADITION IN OUR CITY. THANK YOU. >> The Speaker: THANK YOU HAVE VERY MUCH. FURTHER MEMBER STATEMENTS. >> Mr. SPEAKER, DURING MY CAN VASS OF WELLINGTON HALTON HILLS, I MET THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. I SOUGHT TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS, LISTEN TO THEIR CONCERNS, AND ENCOURAGE THEIR ASPIRATIONS. THE ONE THING I HEARD IS MANY DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE HIGH SPEED INTERNET AND WE KNOW CONNECTION IS IMPORTANT FOR HOUSEHOLDS, FARMS, AND BUSINESSES.

WHEN THE HOUSE RESUMED FOLLOWING THE ELECTION TO CONSIDER THE BUDGET, I TABLED A RESOLUTION URGING THE GOVERNMENT TO DEVELOP AN ADVANTAGE TO ENSURE ALL ONTARIANS HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE HIGH SPEED INTERNET AND WORK WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL WITH PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS. THIS PAST JULY THE GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCED A COMMITMENT TO DOING WHAT WE URGED THEM TO DO, SETTING ASIDE 90 MILLION WITH AN EQUAL FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO SUPPORT THE FIBER TECHNOLOGY PROJECT KNOWN AS SWIFT. WHILE IT SOUNDED GOOD THEY DIDN'T ANNOUNCE A TIME FRAME FOR THE LAUNCH OR COMPLETION FOR THE INTERNET SERVICE NOR COULD THEY RELEASE A LIST OF THE 300 COMMUNITIES THEY CLAIMED WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE PROGRAM. WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN GETTING THIS DONE. WORKING TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH INTERIM OBJECTIVES. I WANT TO EXPRESS MY THANKS TO EVERYONE INVOLVED WITH IMPLEMENTING THIS PROPOSAL, BUT LET'S KEEP IT MOVING. THE COUNTY AND TOWN ARE HAPPY ABOUT EXPANDING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE HIGH SPEED INTERNET. LET'S GET BEHIND OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND BUILD A FIBER NETWORK THAT GIVES EVERY ONTARIAN ACCESS TO HIGH SPEED, AFFORDABLE INTERNET SERVICE AND ALL THE BENEFITS THAT TECHNOLOGY ENTAILS.

>> The Speaker: THANK YOU. THE MEMBER FROM BRAMPTON-WEST. >> WELCOME THE HARD-WORKING RAUL WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL MEDIC. THANK YOU. [Applause] >> The Speaker: I WAS — I WAS JUST ABOUT TO DO THAT, SO I APPRECIATE IT. I HAVE KNOWN RAUL FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AFTER HIS ORDER OF ONTARIO THAT HE RECEIVED. SO CONGRATULATIONS ON THAT. [Applause].

As found on YouTube

when you run a startup or a small business you 
will inevitably face problems perhaps you don't   get enough profits or your employees screw 
up you might work day and night to solve all   those problems but they seem to never end there 
is simply no time for your family and friends   not even for yourself are you 
stuck with all the problems   does it seem impossible to solve them does 
it seem you're the only one who really cares   and even the coffee does not fire you up as much 
as before let me tell you from my heart you do   not have to be alone in the face of all your 
problems of course you can choose to fight alone   but you know it is not the only choice 
you can get professional business advice   without any criticism and without any judgment 
so why you might choose this option when all the   necessary information is available online in 
the internet before the first meeting with me   most of my clients saw the main benefit in getting 
tailored advice an advice which is relevant   specifically for them for their business for their 
situation so they don't have to absorb and process   tons of information from the books and the 
youtube videos yes getting tailored advice   distilled advice is definitely beneficial it is 
also much cheaper and more effective considering   the cost of your time but it is only a fraction 
of benefit that you will get from the consulting   the main advantage of being consulted is the 
possibility to get an alternative viewpoint of   your situation and your problems you see we are 
all accustomed to seeing our business our life   our problems in a certain way often we are stuck 
in our brain and our experience pre-defines   how we see the situation i believe the true art of 
business consulting is to show you your situation   from a different angle from a different viewpoint 
i call it the out of the box thinking when we meet   and apply different frame the solution starts to 
look almost obvious to you let me put it this way   i might not bring you a ready-made solution 
that you must blindly trust i might rather   show you the problem from a different perspective 
so that you can clearly see the solution yourself   and one more thing the hidden gem of talking to a 
business consultant it is getting inspiration to   move forward in life interaction with a real 
human being provides a whole new emotional   experience on a human to human level talking 
to someone who faced similar business problems   who understands how you feel and how to find a 
way out it gives a powerful emotional experience   to lean on it gives inspiration to move forward 
i understand there are other human beings in your   life right now your family your friends your 
employees but do they really understand you do   they really know the hard way what it means to 
be an entrepreneur you would love this feeling   at the end of the consulting session it is the 
feeling that you are not alone in this world   that you're not alone in the face of your problems 
it is the feeling of having someone on your side   you will feel that you are much stronger and much 
more robust than you thought a couple words about   myself about the unique synergy of experience 
and education i believe this is really what   differs me from other consultants there is a 
type of so-called business gurus who never had   any other business experience besides selling 
you online courses for thousands of bucks in   other words teaching business is the only business 
experience that they have in contrast to them i   have founded and run seven small businesses online 
and offline not to mention many years of corporate   business consulting working in switzerland so i 
gained lots of practical and emotional experience   being an entrepreneur a consultant and the ceo 
i know the hard way another type of advisors   do have some hands-on experience but they 
lack fundamental and systematic knowledge   about entrepreneurship in contrast to them i 
have three university degrees in the areas of law   i.t and business administration it includes an 
mba degree master of business administration   from mannheim business school it is rated by 
forbes magazine as the best one in germany   it is coupled with certification as an auditor 
of business processes it enables comprehensive   understanding of all the available solutions 
for all types of business problems this enables   me to choose the one which suits best for your 
particular case and the last point about myself   it allows me to be of even greater benefit 
for you it is my deep interest in people and   in human psychology it helps me to approach you 
on a human to human level without any judgment   and any criticism i know how stressful 
it is to be an entrepreneur to take risks   i admire your courage and i'm very thankful 
for your trust so i'm looking forward to our   first meeting please book it online at 
see you soon dot online so see you soon

As found on YouTube

If you are currently looking for your tax number, or if you are a little confused about which number to use for your invoice, for your tax return or want to call the tax office and do not know which number to give – you will get these answers in this video. Hello, my name is Melchior from Kontist and in this video I would like to go into more detail on the subject of 'Tax Numbers'. As a self-employed, you should know which tax number you have and which one you can use for different applications. The first tax number that you definitely have is your personal tax identification number, sometimes also abbreviated as tax ID or ID number. You will receive this number at birth or if you have immigrated to Germany as a welcome gift. This tax identification number is like your personal fingerprint. It is unique and never changes. If you work as an employee, that's the only number you need. You have to give this tax ID to your employer, you will also find it on every pay slip and also at the end of the year, when you receive your electronic income tax certificate, you will also find your personal tax identification number on this statement.

The second tax number is the “normal” tax number. Called “Normal” because you simply deal with this tax number the more often. You have to state this “normal” tax number on your invoices, on your tax returns, or when you exchange letters with the tax office, then you should always state this tax number. The reason is simple, it is the internal file number at the tax office.

That means, to put it very simply, the tax office has internal files and with this tax number they can find you and if you cannot find it in the correspondence with the tax office, then it will be difficult for the tax office to find you. Since this tax number belongs to the regional responsible tax office, it can change. A lot can happen, for example you move from Munich to Berlin, then the Munich tax office is no longer responsible for you, but the Berlin tax office is. Then you get a new tax number from the Berlin tax office after moving. You may also be starting a new business or getting married.When any of these things happen, you get a new tax number. In addition, in exceptional cases, you may have several of these tax numbers, especially if your place of residence is different from your place of business. For example, if you have a separate office and a different tax office which is responsible for the address where your office is located, then you have a different tax number at the company headquarter's tax office than at the residence tax office. Important for you: you should always make sure that you use the correct tax number.

The business tax number should be used, for example, on your invoices and also for your company tax returns, i.e. for your VAT return and your trade tax return. For the private income tax return, however, you should use the tax number that you received from your local tax office. The third number you should know is your VAT number. You should also have this number if you are self-employed. Often this number is also abbreviated as VAT ID number and you need this number and you need this number if you exchange goods or services with other EU countries, vice versa. This means that you either provide a service to a company in another EU country, for example Austria, you do a consulting service for an Austrian company and then you do not have to enter your tax number on the invoice for such sales, but your VAT identification number. However, you must also provide this VAT identification number if you receive services from another EU country.

For example, if you advertise on Facebook or Google, Facebook and Google are both based in Ireland, i.e. in another EU country, and then you have to go to the settings of Facebook and Google in order to be able to obtain these services as a company and provide your VAT identification number. This VAT identification number always starts with a country code, in Germany it is DE and then comes the actual number.

It is important that the whole thing applies to the number. That means you should never leave out the “DE”. If you are currently self-employed, you can apply for this VAT identification number, very simply with the questionnaire for tax registration, i.e. with your registration with the tax office. If you do that at the beginning, i.e. if you are already self-employed, and forgot to apply for this VAT identification number at the beginning, then you can do it later at the Federal Central Tax Office. On the website of the Federal Central Tax Office you can easily apply online to get your personal VAT identification number. You can find the link under this video. I hope this short video helped you. If you have any other tax questions, please comment below this video. If you are interested in the services of Kontist Steuerberatung, you will find all the information under this video. Otherwise, you are welcome to watch these videos here and here and I look forward to seeing you again next time.

Did we actually make such a general end card or should I ask again: "if you have any questions – blah blah blah?" I just look different now, maybe I should say that again, actually, in general, right? :).

As found on YouTube

In July 2014 Adelaide City Council embarked
upon a mission to ask the Adelaide community about what they wanted for the future of
their city. Stories were collected, forums were held and we listened to what you
love about this great city and how you want it to grow and to change as well as
what we must protect and hold onto. Now everything we have heard has been
directly applied to shaping our new Strategic Plan which sets out our vision
for the future of our city.

The 2016 to 2020 Strategic Plan is
our vision for Adelaide's growth story whereby Adelaide becomes a smart, green,
liveable and boutique city full of rich experiences. We want to build upon our
city's rich character and heritage. All the things we love about Adelaide but we
also want to see the City of Adelaide thrive and prosper in the future. This Strategic Plan is supported by four key themes: Smart, Green, Liveable and Creative. Smart is about being a world smart city with a globally connected and
opportunity rich economy. One example of this will be the implementation of smart parking technology to move towards an expiation free environment. Green is about being one of the world's first carbon-neutral cities and being an
international leader in environmental change.

One of the things we will do to
achieve this is to form the Carbon Neutral Adelaide Partnership with the State
Government. Liveable is about creating a diverse and welcoming capital city with an enviable lifestyle and strong community. One way we'll achieve this is
by delivering a three-year capital works program to create world-class
infrastructure for the city and for the Park Lands. And Creative is all about
offering a city of authentic and internationally renowned experiences.
A key example of this will be attracting a major international event
and a live music festival to Adelaide in our winter months.

We want to know if this is the exciting future that you want for your city..

As found on YouTube

In July 2014 Adelaide City Council embarked
upon a mission to ask the Adelaide community about what they wanted for the future of
their city. Stories were collected, forums were held and we listened to what you
love about this great city and how you want it to grow and to change as well as
what we must protect and hold onto. Now everything we have heard has been
directly applied to shaping our new Strategic Plan which sets out our vision
for the future of our city. The 2016 to 2020 Strategic Plan is
our vision for Adelaide's growth story whereby Adelaide becomes a smart, green,
liveable and boutique city full of rich experiences. We want to build upon our
city's rich character and heritage.

All the things we love about Adelaide but we
also want to see the City of Adelaide thrive and prosper in the future. This Strategic Plan is supported by four key themes: Smart, Green, Liveable and Creative. Smart is about being a world smart city with a globally connected and
opportunity rich economy. One example of this will be the implementation of smart parking technology to move towards an expiation free environment. Green is about being one of the world's first carbon-neutral cities and being an
international leader in environmental change. One of the things we will do to
achieve this is to form the Carbon Neutral Adelaide Partnership with the State
Government. Liveable is about creating a diverse and welcoming capital city with an enviable lifestyle and strong community. One way we'll achieve this is
by delivering a three-year capital works program to create world-class
infrastructure for the city and for the Park Lands. And Creative is all about
offering a city of authentic and internationally renowned experiences.
A key example of this will be attracting a major international event
and a live music festival to Adelaide in our winter months.

We want to know if this is the exciting future that you want for your city..

As found on YouTube

Over the next few months, we will multiply the opportunities to meet to reflect, share our ideas, and determine our actions. All of us here therefore collectively have an important historical responsibility towards all workers in the public sector. It is now. It's up to you to make your voice heard because this negotiation is yours, the public sector is you, because above all, it's also about inverting the pyramid. We run the public services. These are the people who work every day with the different groups of users. What do you want? For you? For the population? I think we have to get out of the traditional framework of trade unionism. That's what you're doing there, because you're giving yourself a lot of time to do it. There is no harm in demanding good working conditions..

As found on YouTube

The Committee of the Whole Parliament will consider stage 2 of the Coronavirus (Extension and Expiry) (Scotland) Bill. For the duration of the proceedings, I am the convener of the committee. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for each division will be up to one minute. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or type R in the chat as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is in a group on its own. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether I should call you “Convener” now—I will stick with “Presiding Officer”.

Amendment 1 is my legislative attempt to be just a little bit cheeky. The Government and members will be aware of my frustration with the narrow scope of the bill—a deliberate choice made by the Scottish Government—that has inhibited members lodging amendments of substance to fill policy gaps. Most such amendments have, unfortunately, been ruled inadmissible by the Presiding Officer on the basis of the narrow scope of the bill. Amendment 1 sets out the purpose of the act to increase its scope, and thus the amendments that could be accepted for debate. The delicious irony is that amendment 1 has been accepted but the other amendments of substance have not.

I continue to live in hope, but my experience with the Government is, as Dr Johnson would have said, “a triumph of hope over experience.” I move amendment 1. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland, and I own a property from which I derive rental income. I thank Jackie Baillie for her bold attempt with amendment 1 to extend the purpose of the bill. I understand exactly where she is coming from and the point that she is trying to make. In the stage 1 debate yesterday, I set out our concerns about the fact that the bill has been too rushed. There has been no time for consultation or detailed scrutiny. Unlike Jackie Baillie’s criticism of the bill, ours is not that it does too little but that it does too much too quickly. What Jackie Baillie is trying to do would exacerbate an existing problem, because she is trying to broaden the scope of the bill to allow more amendments to be lodged on which there has been no consultation and for which there will be no time for detailed parliamentary scrutiny.

For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 1, which would make the problem worse rather than better. This is getting us off to an absolutely fabulous start. It is refreshing to be reminded that Jackie Baillie is, if nothing else, up front in what she does. Murdo Fraser’s contribution contrasted with Jackie Baillie’s makes me feel that I am between the devil and the deep blue sea in arguing that the provisions of the bill are designed to follow a very narrow purpose, which is to ensure that a number of practical operational factors and provisions that are in place to help us to manage the challenges of Covid are either maintained in statute or expired as a consequence of the bill.

Who knows, perhaps more of them will be expired as a consequence of amendments. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for her explanation of the purpose of amendment 1, but it is an unnecessary and potentially confusing amendment. The Government’s general approach to the drafting of bills is to avoid including purpose sections. We avoid them because they have a legal effect by virtue of their inclusion in a bill, which means that they are open to legal interpretation, and that interpretation may have unintended consequences for other provisions in the bill.

The long title of the bill already makes it crystal clear to the reader what the bill does. I do not think that the addition of a purpose section adds anything. Instead, it introduces an element of uncertainty that I think that it is important that we avoid. For those reasons, I invite Jackie Baillie to not press amendment 1. If she does, I encourage the Parliament to vote against the amendment. I am glad that the cabinet secretary described Murdo Fraser as the devil and me as the deep blue sea. I would have worried a little if it was the other way around. It was a choice! The cabinet secretary made the right choice in this instance. I would like to rebut Murdo Fraser’s argument. I entirely accept that we are in the middle of a pandemic. We might be seeing light at the end of the tunnel, but we are still in an emergency situation and this is about policy gaps. We are talking about ensuring that people who most need protection are covered by the legislation and that we do not create any policy gaps.

I do not agree with the cabinet secretary—he will be surprised to know—that there are consequences of my proposal or that it creates uncertainty. However, in the interests of time and because this is not a point of substance, I am happy to withdraw my amendment 1. Amendment 2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 3, 15, 19, 20 and 21. I rise to speak to amendments 2, 3, 15 and 19 in my name, which are grouped with Murdo Fraser’s amendments 20 and 21, which we will support, too. I will address each of them in turn, briefly. Amendments 2 and 3 would remove the power to extend the provisions to September 2022. Emergency legislation is just that—it is for emergencies. I believe that we have come through the worst of the pandemic. The First Minister believes so, too, given her upbeat statement yesterday. I think that that is something that we all hope is now happening. The vaccine programme is now being rolled out at pace, and restrictions are slowly but surely being lifted. Even pubs are now allowed to open late, if the Euros go to extra time or penalties. Although that is unbelievably inconsistent with the other restrictions that are in place, it is a sign that normality is returning.

However, that action is not consistent with an emergency. As it stands, the bill will be extended by six months to April 2022. I do not believe that it is necessary to go beyond that. If there is another emergency, there is time to bring forward legislation at speed to cope with it. Does Jackie Bailie agree that, all the way through the pandemic, we have kept hoping that things would be finished quicker than they were, and that problems such as new variants or shortages of vaccine have arisen? Is it not wiser to leave the other six-month period in place? I genuinely do not think so, because, certainly in the discussions that it had with me, the Government was prepared to consider a shorter extension period.

The principle is the thing that applies. At the moment, the extension would be for six months beyond September. I think that that is enough, but it also allows the Parliament time, should there be a need, to bring forward urgent legislation, and it allows this Parliament to scrutinise provisions that give sweeping powers to the Scottish Government and ministers rather than simply rolling them over. Amendment 15 is about improving scrutiny. It seeks to expire rather than extend the power to use the made affirmative procedure for Scottish statutory instruments in urgent situations. As I said yesterday, I think that the context has changed. Restrictions are lifting, Parliament is sitting and committees are constituted. There is absolutely no reason why regulations should not come before this chamber or before the Parliament.

I note that even the United Kingdom Government has agreed to bring changes to be voted on in the House of Commons. If the Conservatives can concede that in an effort to be open and transparent, why is the SNP setting itself a lower standard to meet? Parliamentary scrutiny, openness and transparency are essential for a flourishing democracy. It is time for this Parliament to do its job on behalf of the people who elected us. Finally, I will not move amendment 19, and will work with the Scottish Government to bring it back at stage 3. Again, the amendment is about improving scrutiny. I want a statement to be made to Parliament before changes are made to measures that are in place to respond to the virus.

I entirely accept that 14 days is just a little too long to wait for that and a much shorter timescale is needed to allow for a speed of response. However, the principle of the amendment is important. Statements must be made to this chamber by ministers. I am not going to speak at length about recent events, in which decisions were made that appear to lack consistency and simply do not make sense. Members will have an opportunity to scrutinise, and that will benefit the Government and our democracy. I move amendment 2. I will speak to amendments 20 and 21, in my name, and comment on the amendments in the name of Jackie Baillie. Unlike in the previous group, I am happy to support Jackie Baillie’s amendments in this group. I start with Jackie Baillie’s amendments 2 and 3, which she just explained. They remove ministers’ power to extend provisions beyond the initial six months for a further six-month period.

If that extension were to go ahead, it would mean that the powers contained in the coronavirus acts that we passed in spring last year will be in place for two and a half years from when they were originally introduced. To put that into context, yesterday the First Minister told Parliament that we were hoping to be in a situation where the great majority of restrictions affecting us would be lifted by the middle of August. I accept that that was a caveated statement, as it was dependent on a number of things, including the data continuing to improve. However, if it proves to be correct, it will mean that the various provisions of the bills that we passed 15 months ago will continue until the end of March next year—about eight months from now.

If there were an extension of a further six months, the provisions would extend for a year and one month after the point at which the First Minister has told us that we should be getting back to a degree of normality. I find it really hard to understand why we should be in that situation. Indeed, if we get to the new year and there is still an argument for the restrictions, the proper way to deal with that would be to bring forward new legislation, instead of just rolling over something that has been rushed through and passed in a desperate hurry.

Therefore, I support Jackie Baillie’s amendments 2 and 3. If they are not successful, I intend to move amendments 20 and 21, which are a further safeguard in relation to the additional extension of time. Those amendments require ministers, should they wish to extend for that further six-month period, to give at least 45 days’ notice of that intention. Why? That would give us the opportunity to have detailed consultation and debate on the impact of rolling those powers over for a further six-month period. That would be very welcome, in stark contrast to the situation that we have been in over the past few days, where we have had to deal with this bill in a dreadful rush, without having the opportunity for external input and consultation and without time for detailed parliamentary scrutiny.

I am grateful to the Covid-19 review observatory at the University of Birmingham law school, which has input ideas in relation to the bill; I read its submission with great interest. That is why I have lodged amendments 20 and 21. I am happy to support the other amendments in the group. The outcome of the vote on amendments 2 and 3 will be very important to the Liberal Democrats when it comes to deciding whether to support the bill at stage 3, because they seek to support the fundamental principle that these are emergency powers—they exist only in the context of an emergency. We simply do not know what the context or the landscape of the pandemic will look like in 2022. As we all know, coronavirus is unpredictable and it can lead to unimaginable change, but the weathervanes all point to the fact that we might finally be emerging from it, and the roll-out of the vaccine is going well. We have to hope that there will be some version of normality in the near future without the necessity for draconian Government powers hanging over us all.

The bill will allow ministers to extend those powers in a wholesale way to September 2022, by regulation. As I have said before, the existing coronavirus legislation contains powers that are far reaching and, indeed, illiberal. They are necessary only because of the clear and urgent need brought about by the pandemic. There is no need to extend such powers. As we speak, ministers are showing their ability to legislate quickly. If the Government insists that three days is enough time for scrutiny of a new piece of legislation on this occasion, why could that time not be found again in the new year? I reiterate our support for amendments 20 and 21, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the same basis.

I am gratified to hear that Jackie Baillie has chosen not to move amendment 19. I look forward to working with her on that at stage 3 because I have a lot of sympathy with her intentions. The amendment would require that a statement be laid before Parliament 14 days before any proposed changes came into force. My party has expressed frustrations with late changes, some of which have been poorly consulted on. There have been times when businesses have spent serious amounts of money preparing for one scenario, only to find themselves plunged into an entirely different situation at the last minute. However, I share the concern that a requirement for 14 days’ notice would not give the Government the flexibility to respond to urgent health threats. If such a rule were to apply to adding countries to the red list, would we be able to respond with the speed required in the event of a new variant emerging? We know that a delay in making such decisions can have serious and far-reaching consequences.

The Government has stretched and, at times, overstepped the boundaries in making announcements to Parliament and doing so in good time, but I recognise the need to afford ministers flexibility so that they can respond to serious and fast-moving situations. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for not moving amendment 19 and I look forward to working with her at stage 3. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for her explanation of her amendments, starting with amendments 2 and 3. Although I understand the rationale behind those amendments, the Government intends to resist them, because they attempt to remove important flexibility from the bill. As was commented on several times yesterday, we cannot predict the path of the pandemic or how long we may need some of the important measures that are contained in the acts. Will the Deputy First Minister explain what he means by “flexibility”? When they presented their arguments, Jackie Baillie and Murdo Fraser said that, should there still be a need for emergency powers, we would work co-operatively across the Parliament in order to give the Government the powers that it would need in such an emergency.

Why is the Government resistant to that? It does not make any sense to someone like me who is listening to this kind of debate for the first time. We recognise that we are in a very uncertain situation. We are optimistic about the situation—that is obvious—but there are still anxieties. The case numbers today cause me further anxiety. We are not absolutely certain about the course that the pandemic will take and we are therefore not certain of the implications over the coming winter. There may be a requirement for us to use some of the powers over a longer period of time. I will come on to explain the rationale about the situation that we could face, which could see us having to return to more emergency legislation. I am trying to minimise the recourse to emergency legislation by having sufficient flexibility in the legislation that Parliament passes this week to enable us to address any circumstances that we may face in due course.

It makes no sense to remove a safety net that we may well need, especially because any further extension would require Parliament to scrutinise and approve affirmative regulations. I want to be clear on that point. The bill only enables the Government to ask for Parliament’s approval for an extension. It is for Parliament to determine any decision about whether such an extension should be granted. The Scottish Government remains committed to retaining powers only for as long as they are necessary and appropriate. I remind members that Parliament will, on a bimonthly basis, scrutinise the decisions of this Government in relation to the continued need for measures in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020, which this bill proposes to extend. There will therefore be numerous opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise the continued necessity for the provisions.

The removal of flexibility would also have an impact on the timing of a permanence bill, which we will soon consult on. Without that flexibility, the permanence bill would have to be in force by the end of March 2022 to ensure that there is no legislative gap. Parliament would therefore be deliberately choosing to put a deadline on the date by which the bill placing measures on a permanent basis must be enacted. That does not appear to be consistent with the mood in Parliament, and is likely to have the effect of reducing the amount of time that Parliament will have to scrutinise the bill.

16:00 In addition, if it is necessary to extend the measures further, it could result in another emergency measure, without this power. Parliament will still be able to consider and debate any extension, and the necessity for that, through debate on the regulations. I do not consider an emergency bill designed to achieve the same aim would be an appropriate and effective use of Parliament’s time. I therefore ask members not to support amendments 2 and 3, which seek to remove important flexibility, have wider implications for legislative planning, and may necessitate further emergency legislation in six months’ time. I am sure that Jackie Baillie will be glad to hear that the Government is content to support amendment 15, which will expire on 30 September 2021 the provisions relating to scrutiny of subordinate legislation in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020.

The provisions in that amendment relate to allowing regulations to be progressed under the main affirmative procedure rather than the draft affirmative procedure, and therefore enable regulations to be brought into force immediately where necessary, but to remain in force only if parliamentary approval is secured. As a result of Parliament’s willingness to accelerate timetabling of the scrutiny of relevant draft affirmative regulations, it has not been necessary to use those so far. Therefore, although it would be helpful to retain those provisions in case accelerated timetabling of necessary draft affirmative regulations is not always possible, the Government is willing to accept Parliament’s view on that matter.

For those reasons, I lend my support to amendment 15. However, I wish to make Jackie Baillie aware that, if the amendment is agreed to by Parliament, technical tidying-up amendments will be lodged by the Government at stage 3 to make small consequential amendments. Although I appreciate the sentiments behind amendment 19, it is, in my view, unworkable, and much more widely drawn than Jackie Baillie suggests. Obviously, Jackie Baillie has indicated that she will not move that amendment. The effect of that amendment could be to require ministers to lay a statement before Parliament on any change to any measure in response to Covid proposed by any person or authority. I do not think that that is deliverable, or what Parliament would want—nor would it be feasible for ministers to lay such statements 14 days before they are intended to have effect. By its very nature, the pandemic has necessitated urgent action in response to its changing impact. I wish that that were not so, but that is the reality that the Government must deal with, and which is likely to be the case for the foreseeable future.

At every stage during the pandemic, the Government has fully committed to being accountable to Parliament and its committees. We have agreed specific arrangements with the Parliament for the detailed scrutiny of ministerial statements and accompanying regulations. We stand ready to act on any further measures that the Presiding Officer or Parliament consider would assist scrutiny. However, ministers must retain the ability to move at pace where the public health and clinical advice indicates the need for immediate action. On that basis, the Government cannot support amendment 19. However, I am happy to commit to Jackie Baillie and other members that the Government will continue to have dialogue about how best to keep Parliament informed about any significant changes to measures that we consider necessary.

The Government also intends to resist amendments 20 and 21, as they attempt to remove important flexibility from the bill. It has been the Government’s view that a fine balance needs to be struck between making available as up-to-date evidence as possible and allowing sufficient time for scrutiny and implementation in order that stakeholders and public bodies can prepare for any changes. Indeed, we have been discussing that matter over the past couple of days. In my view, it is unhelpful for the Government to be unnecessarily constrained by having an arbitrary 45-day deadline imposed. It would instead be more helpful to maintain a balance and necessary flexibility. I therefore suggest that amendments 20 and 21 are unnecessary and invite members not to support them. I intend to press amendment 2. I will make a couple of comments in closing. I recall that, at Westminster, MPs kicked up such a fuss when the UK act was first extended in September 2020 that the UK Government agreed that, wherever possible, it would bring a debate and vote on new regulations to Westminster before they came into force.

It has done that. For example, the UK Government decided to delay the lifting of lockdown on Monday of last week; MPs voted on the regulations on Thursday, three days later. In contrast, on 11 June, the Scottish Government made regulations about the social distancing that is required in the fan zone and at Hampden, which MSPs are not voting on until today, after the events have basically happened. We cannot continue to operate in such a way. I am pleased that the Government will accept amendment 15 on the basis that the provision has not been used at all. That proves that there needs to be better scrutiny by this Parliament, because the Government was simply going to extend an emergency measure that has never been used. On amendments 2 and 3, I think that scrutiny is important.

In my view, there is no need to extend, and no sensible justification for extending, emergency legislation with such sweeping powers for more than six months. As I said to John Mason, in discussion with the Government, a compromise of an extra three months was suggested. That tells me that the Government was prepared to negotiate on whether the extension would be six, nine or 12 months, which does not appear to be based on any scientific approach. There is no logic to the cabinet secretary’s argument when he says that he does not want any more emergency legislation, but that the Government wants the option to extend emergency legislation. If we are coming out of the pandemic, we should not have emergency legislation in place for any longer than is necessary. We need accountability to the Parliament; therefore, I will press amendment 2 in my name.

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. Proceedings will be suspended for the first division of the afternoon. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. On a point of order, convener. I did not realise that we were voting on amendment 2. I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Burgess. That is noted for the record, but we cannot change the recorded vote. The result of the division on amendment 2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is: For 55, Against 65, Abstentions 0. Amendment 2 disagreed to. Amendment 3 moved— The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. Members should vote now. On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote appears not to have registered; I would have voted yes. Thank you. I call Clare Adamson for a point of order. Unfortunately, we cannot hear you, Ms Adamson, but I can confirm that you did vote. The result of the division on amendment 3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is: For 54, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to. Section 1 agreed to. Group 3 is on justice. Amendment 4, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 6 to 11, 22, 23 and 27. I will speak to amendments 4, 7, 8 and 27, which are in my name, and I will move amendment 4. I begin by asking the Deputy First Minister to acknowledge that, in a rather rushed process, we have all done our best. I thank the legislation team for ensuring that we could draft and lodge our amendments in time. Amendment 4 seeks to address the welfare of prisoners by hooking in the provision to regulate for early release so that Government would have a far-reaching power to do that. It also seeks to enable discussion of the wider implications of prisoners spending long periods in cells because of coronavirus and concerns about the lack of fresh air for prisoners who cannot get outdoors.

The amendment would require the Government to report every two months on the welfare provisions. Organisations including Amnesty International have already expressed concerns about the length of time that prisoners have spent in prison. Given the human rights responsibilities of the Parliament, some supervision of the conditions in which prisoners are held, particularly when the virus is present in the prison, would be a helpful provision. Amendments 6 and 7 relate to expiration of the increase to £500 in the value of fiscal fines, and to the extension of time limits. The fine of £500 would, I imagine, be for high-tariff crimes. I would be concerned if that increase were to be permanent, so I wish to probe the issue in debate, and to probe expiration of the extension of time limits for criminal proceedings, which should not be extended.

Before coronavirus, there were already significant delays in the courts, particularly the High Court, with cases going well beyond the 140-day limit that is set out in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The first coronavirus legislation suspended certain time limits and had the effect of increasing the maximum time period for an accused person to be held on remand prior to trial. The current bill seeks to extend that period again.

I realise that all those time limits are slightly shorter than those for summary cases. I have expressed extreme concern at the number of people who are held on remand in Scotland, which almost doubled during the pandemic, from 982 to 1,753 between April 2020 in April 2021. Even before the pandemic, we therefore had an issue with the number of people being held on remand. The Scottish Government acknowledged that point in January 2020, noting that Scotland has the highest prison population per head in western Europe and that approximately one in five prisoners in Scottish jails were held on remand. Howard League Scotland published a report last month titled “The Scandal of Remand in Scotland” and noted that 57 per cent of people who are held on remand do not go on to be given a prison sentence.

There were reports this week as well on women in remand that are concerning. Amendments 6 and 7 are probing amendments. I realise why the Government would want to extend the time limits, but I ask it to acknowledge that the numbers on remand were a serious issue before the pandemic and that we should be careful about using those powers. I understand why the Government wants to extend those provisions, but it would be welcome if it would note that point. I have more concerns about amendment 8, which relates to hearsay evidence. I question whether we need the provision on hearsay evidence now, given that there are more opportunities for people to attend court. When we passed the first coronavirus legislation, the Scottish Law Commission noted that the provision would be used only in a narrow set of circumstances. Amendment 8 seeks to expire rather than extend the option for hearsay evidence to be accepted. The rationale for the original coronavirus legislation allowing the use of hearsay evidence was that it would allow evidence by statement where there would be a particular risk to a person’s wellbeing from the coronavirus or a particular risk of transmitting the coronavirus to others.

However, a statement cannot be cross-examined by the defence and, further, the legislation does not specify whether it would be a witness diagnosed with coronavirus who would use the provision concerned. More important, though, I am not clear whether the provision would be used for the complainer in a trial or for a witness. I hope that the Government can see that, if that provision was more widely used, it would not serve the interests of justice if a complainer provided a statement that could not be cross-examined. I am looking for the Government to say in what circumstances it would be happy for hearsay evidence, which is hardly ever allowed in the courts, to be used. Amendment 27 seeks more information on how fiscal fines are used. For example, it is unclear what sort of crimes would incur fines of £400 and £500.

I want the Government to be clear about that. I would like to see some transparency by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about how the powers would be used and for what types of crime. That transparency would be in the interests of justice and fairness. I am sympathetic to the concerns behind Jamie Greene’s amendments 9 and 23, which I am sure I will hear him express in the debate.

It would be helpful if the Government could confirm that, when the provisions on the early release of prisoners are used, the prisoners would be near the end of their sentence, the release would be related to a coronavirus outbreak and there would be no intention to use those powers for general prisoner management. The same confirmation would be helpful for payback orders too. I move amendment 4. I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 9 and other amendments in the group. This is the only set of amendments that I will deal with, so I hope that members will bear with me, as there is a lot of them and there is a lot in them. This is the only opportunity that we will get to talk about the justice-related issues of these emergency powers, so I hope that we give them a good airing accordingly.

I thank members for lodging amendments that I, too, tried to lodge but could not. I thank the parliamentary chamber desk and the legislation team, who have been superb over the past few days and have gone beyond the extra mile to turn what were just concepts into meaningful and workable amendments. The problem that we identified, as is the case with Pauline McNeill’s amendments in this group, is that the only way in which we could bring some of these issues to the table is through the process of revoking or expiring the provisions that the Government seeks to extend. That is far from ideal. We will hear from the Deputy First Minister about some of the unintended consequences of full revocation or expiration of the measures, and I understand why he will make that case—indeed, he probably has a case on some of them. I caveat my comments by saying that some of the measures were necessary for an emergency footing and some of them may still be necessary as we live through the pandemic.

Some of the measures may even have long-term benefits, and I would be the first to admit that, but emergency measures by their very nature cause us to do things differently, and that is most apparent in relation to our judiciary. That has consequences, and we know from some of the briefings and feedback that we have had from stakeholders that some of the measures have caused concern. It is important that we get those concerns on the table. We had to make a judgment call about submitting these amendments. The problem was that not submitting them would have meant that there would be no debate on them—then no one gets their voice heard in the Official Report or by ministers. In many ways, I would rather have approached the amendments very differently, and I appreciate that they create some technical difficulties. That is by the by, and I will now address the amendments, starting with amendment 6.

Initially, we supported the raising of the fiscal fine limit from £300 to £500, because the case was rightly made at the time that we could deal with a far greater number of cases in that way rather than through formal court proceedings that put more pressure on courts with burgeoning backlogs. This is an important question: what impact has that had on the serving of justice? How many cases that would have been met with harsher measures have been dealt with by administering fines? Has that provision watered down the dispensing of justice in relation to certain types of crimes? The problem is that we do not know—we do not have the data and we have not heard evidence to the contrary.

I am minded to support amendment 6 if it is pressed. Amendments 7 deals with the extension of time limits for prisoners on remand, which is a much bigger issue. I tried to submit an amendment of a similar nature, but it was deemed inadmissible. We took the approach of extending the total number of days that a prisoner can be kept in custody, which was a difficult decision at the time, but the maximum of 140 days was clearly not going to be enough in a number of cases. It is clear that we could not allow a situation in which some prisoners who are accused of very dangerous crimes could be allowed back on to the street before the trial comes to pass.

Like many areas of public service, the justice sector has been hit hard by coronavirus. Howard League Scotland warned us of the problem that the number of Scottish prisoners on remand has grown immensely over the course of the pandemic due to those delays. However, the way to tackle the problem is not simply to let people out of prison but to speed up the processing of those backlogs. I know that the cabinet secretary will tell us what the Government is doing on that, but there are thousands of people who are awaiting trial.

There is an issue with the remand population that I tried to raise at topical questions the other day, and it relates to the shocking suicide statistics of those on remand. Almost half of all deaths of remand prisoners are suicide; the figure for the general prison population is a third. That is shocking. Howard League Scotland has described that as the scandal of the Scottish Prison Service.

Given that Scotland’s remand population is double that of England and Wales, how can this endless extension of keeping people on remand deal with the number of people on remand or the nature of remand. We are faced with an impossible conundrum: nobody wants the automatic release of potentially dangerous criminals on to our streets due to forced expiration of the measures but, equally, we do not want—and should not countenance—endless and limitless remand caused by backlogs of court cases, which is not acceptable or humane. I turn to amendment 8 and the hearsay provision. It is an important amendment; we have had much feedback on it and it was much debated in the original legislation. The latest briefing from the Law Society of Scotland, which I thank for its information, raised a particular concern about the changes to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and the continued changes to hearsay requirements.

Under the current emergency measures that the Government plans to extend, a witness in a trial can give evidence but not necessarily be required to give evidence under oath or be subject to cross-examination to test that evidence. That is the key point. The use of untested evidence in criminal trials is extremely problematic and muddies our entire criminal justice process. As members will have heard, I share Jamie Greene’s concerns about that provision. Even the appeal court has been conducted in a virtual setting so, if the Government wants to provide flexibility to allow courts to proceed, it could do so in other ways. Does the member agree that the big question is whether it serves the interests of justice if someone who is accused of a serious crime cannot cross-examine a witness or complainer when an accusation has been made, because a statement cannot be cross-examined? Exactly. On Friday, one lawyer described the situation to me by saying, “You cannot cross-examine a piece of paper”, and he is absolutely right. We need to consider where there is a necessity to tolerate the practice on a long-term basis.

This is not simply a short-term extension—it is for six or 12 months and potentially even longer, given that we have seen the powers being rolled on and on. The legal profession is saying to us that the practice cannot become the norm and should not be acceptable to us as the norm. In response to the original proposals, the Faculty of Advocates warned about what the interpretation of the term “reasonably practicable” might be, and the faculty’s briefing at the time said: “Abandoning the hope of sworn oral testimony is only done as a last resort, knowing that it is at the expense of the quality of that evidence.

It is not a step taken lightly.” We do not know how much the power is being used in practice, because we have not taken evidence on it, which is another by-product of this rushed affair. I move on to my amendments. To save time, I will cover amendments 9, 10 and 23 together. We need a much wider conversation about the use of community orders, but we will not have that today, as it is a complex matter. However, we need to stimulate proper debate on the issue. The problem that we are faced with today is that we can either approve or revoke the emergency procedures, and in this case neither would be ideal. In the early stages of the virus, we all got behind the need to reduce face-to-face contact.

That made sense, no matter how difficult it was, so the community order provisions made sense at that time. However, we are now 18 months on and we are in a completely different situation. The stay-at-home message has been rescinded, people are mingling outside, seemingly more than ever, and 80 per cent of Scots have received their first dose of the vaccine. Therefore, I argue that there is no excuse for writing off or rescinding community orders and that people should be carrying them out. Unless the cabinet secretary can give clear evidence to the contrary, it seems that there is simply no need for the power to be extended. I believe that community service can be carried out safely if the scientific evidence allows it. The consequence of the emergency powers is that 300,000 hours of community service have been written off—they are just gone. That will raise eyebrows, not least among those who have been the victims of crime. Social Work Scotland has warned that there is a backlog of 700,000 hours of community service yet to be served within the designated timescale, which it says is impossible.

We do not know, but up to 450,000 hours of that might be written off. I ask the cabinet secretary to think carefully about extending the powers. My amendments seek to revoke the powers. No doubt, we will hear that there are issues with that but, nonetheless, I want to probe the Government on the issue, because the measures cannot proceed without debate. My final points, which are important, are about my amendments 11 and 12 and amendment 4 in the name of Pauline McNeill—we tried to lodge a similar amendment. The amendments are about the early release of prisoners, which is perhaps one of the more contentious issues and one that my predecessor, Liam Kerr, spoke about in detail. I know that the issue is a concern for the Criminal Justice Committee. We will support amendment 4, which includes useful and important reporting metrics that would at least give us an indication of the situation. We are again being made to decide on a complex policy matter with a simple yes or no, or keep or do not keep. It does a disservice to the Scottish Prison Service when we execute policy decisions in that manner.

The provision on the early release of prisoners was originally intended to mitigate a health crisis and an emergency in our prisons and I understand the reasons: it allowed the Scottish ministers effectively to grant prisoners early release if they were serving less than 18 months and had fewer than 90 days left in custody on 4 May last year. Members should think about the date and what was going on at the time, especially if the prisoners were at high risk of catching Covid in prison.

We supported that provision, perhaps reluctantly, in March 2020, but we had no idea what was facing us. Today, we are in a very different situation. We have a tremendous vaccination programme, which is also taking place within the prison population, and the decision to vaccinate prisoners, in line with the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommendations, was valid, although it is unclear how many prisoners have been vaccinated. The average age of a prisoner in Scotland is in the 30s, and more than 70 per cent of those who are in the 30 to 39 population group have had their first jab. Although I think that prisoners pose a far lower infection risk to each other than they did before, any risk that still exists must be addressed and the way to address that is not simply to release prisoners but to deal with prisons on a one-to-one basis and work with the staff and protect them.

Again, we will object to the on-going extension of those powers, unless the cabinet secretary can justify them. With all those measures, I revert to my opening comments. The process is already rushed, and we should not be doing it that way. We should be taking evidence on those important matters that affect our justice system, but we are not able to. Therefore, it is with regret that the Parliament has voted to navigate those complex matters in the way that we are doing, in the few short hours that we have. I rise in support of all of Pauline McNeill’s amendments and some of Jamie Greene’s amendments. The Scottish Liberal Democrats worked hard to highlight the crisis in our prisons, which were unsafe and overcrowded well before the pandemic struck, because the Scottish Government has repeatedly failed to get a grip on the instinct to imprison. I have long supported evidence-based proposals for reducing the prison population by stopping the overreliance on remand and giving confidence to community sentencing options that do not rely on extra bunks in Barlinnie. The release power was a mechanism that was put in place as part of extraordinary measures, at an extraordinary time, in the interests of health and safety.

Fifteen months into the pandemic, with the vaccine roll-out well under way, that threat to health and safety is not what it was and the Government should not get comfortable with the power of executive release, because it is not a sustainable option for the long term. Likewise, options for automatic rebates on community orders do nothing to give confidence in those orders. If there are resource or deliverability issues, as opposed to health and safety issues, they need to be dealt with through proper funding, so that people can be supported to meet the terms of the orders.

The legislation cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for the Scottish Government’s failure to properly support Scotland’s justice system. I close with a word in support of amendment 7, in the name of Pauline McNeill, which would disapply the extension of time limits to criminal proceedings. Yesterday, I spoke in the stage 1 debate about the issues of remand that Jamie Greene has eloquently pointed to this afternoon—in particular, the rising population on remand. A rising number of people are going for a plea of convenience by pleading guilty to a crime that they perhaps did not commit, because they know that, otherwise, they will spend longer on remand when waiting for their case to come to trial. We support amendment 7, because we believe that the extension of time limits has caused a drift in the criminal justice system that is no longer acceptable. Amendment 4 would duplicate reporting that is already undertaken on conditions in prisons.

On its website, the Scottish Prison Service already regularly provides updated information on the effects of Covid, including a regular update on the numbers of prisoners who are infected or self-isolating, the number of prison staff who are absent from work due to Covid, and updates on prison operations and policies in response to Covid. There is also already regular reporting to Parliament on the legislation’s provisions. I also fear that amendment 4 would not have the intended effect of requiring Scottish ministers to produce a report on conditions within prisons every two months.

As drafted, the trigger for the report seems to be the use of the release power, so it would not happen unless that power was used again, and there are no current plans to use it. If the power were used, it does not seem proportionate to initiate an on-going reporting requirement that might end up continuing well beyond the period of release, when the context might have significantly changed. Does the reporting that the cabinet secretary mentioned currently include how often prisoners get to be outdoors and things like that, which I mentioned in my remarks? I do not think that it will carry systematic volume data, but there will be information on the way in which prisons are able to operate within the context of the current situation.

I am happy to write to Pauline McNeill with further detail on that issue. If ministers considered it necessary in future to make use of the early release power, specific regulations would have to be presented to Parliament on the proposed process, which would have to demonstrate why the action was considered necessary and proportionate and how it would support the effective operation of prisons and protect the health of prison staff and prisoners. I therefore urge members to reject amendment 4. Amendment 6 seeks to expire on 30 September 2021 paragraph 7 of schedule 4 to the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020. That provision increased the maximum available fiscal fine from £300 to £500 and introduced a new scale of fixed penalties to give practical effect to that measure. The measure, which has been in force since 7 April 2020, represents a small but important part of the wider response to the on-going recovery of the justice system from the significant impacts of coronavirus, which is expected to last for a number of years, and certainly beyond 30 September. The increase of the available upper limit of fiscal fines from £300 to £500 has allowed a greater number of cases to be diverted from summary court proceedings without the need for court procedure and associated appearance at court.

That has, crucially, freed up the courts and prosecutors to deal with more serious cases and eased the burden on the courts during a time of significant resource pressure as a result of coronavirus. As members are aware, there remains a significant backlog of cases in the court system as a result of the coronavirus outbreak, and retaining the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s ability to divert a greater number of cases from the courts through the measure is an important and proportionate part of the wider approach to enabling the justice system to recover from the impact of coronavirus. Therein lies the issue. We are using emergency legislation to extend what are extraordinary measures. I am not saying that I do not support what has been achieved through the measure; the problem is that, as the cabinet secretary said, the backlog could take a number of years to clear, far beyond even the longest extension of the legislation.

Would it not be proper and prudent for the Government to produce fuller proposals and for Parliament to debate the matter properly so that such measures become long term with the overt approval of Parliament rather than through emergency legislation? I think that we are in danger of repeating ourselves. Of course, Mr Greene is perfectly entitled to repeat points that have already been aired in debates, including yesterday, on the approach that the Government has taken. Through the bill, the Government is trying to take forward a number of practical measures that are necessary to cope with the disruptive impact of Covid on public services. Mr Greene and I can agree that there is a backlog of court business—that is beyond dispute.

With the benefit of legislation that the Parliament has already passed—and had reports on—over the past 15 months, the Government is trying to continue the practical, mitigating approaches that are in place, which Parliament has already agreed to, where that is justifiable. The justification here is that there remains a significant backlog of court cases. The provision contains sufficient flexibility to deal with that, and it could exist for a further 12 months after 30 September if Parliament agrees first to the bill and then to a renewal after six months. However, if there needs to be consideration of longer-term provisions beyond that time, the permanence bill, which we will consult on over the summer and take forward in the normal parliamentary sequence, as I assured Mr Fraser yesterday, could be a place for that to be undertaken.

I agree with Mr Greene, in that I do not think that this is a desirable long-term provision, but we need it now because of the backlog in the courts. The reassurance for Mr Greene is that, in accordance with guidance issued by the Lord Advocate, the measure will be used only where independent prosecutors consider such action to be appropriate in the public interest, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Safeguards are built into the operation of fiscal fines, which are not mandatory penalties. Anyone who is offered a fiscal fine as an alternative to prosecution may refuse such an offer by giving notice to the court to that effect. In such an event, the refusal is treated as a request by the alleged offender to be prosecuted for the offence, in which case the procurator fiscal decides what action to take in the public interest.

The measure allows, where appropriate, for a greater range of cases to be dealt with outwith the court setting. It remains an important part of the on-going recovery of our justice system from the impacts of coronavirus. I therefore invite Pauline McNeill not to move amendment 6. Amendment 7 seeks to expire the provisions suspending certain time limits that are contained in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It might be helpful if I explain to members why the suspension of the time limits will continue to be important in enabling the justice system to recover from the effects of the pandemic, even after the immediate impact of coronavirus has abated.

The purpose of the provisions is to preserve scarce court resource from having to be used to extend time limits in individual cases. Expiring the provisions will not, in itself, provide any additional court capacity or result in anyone’s case being heard any more quickly than is currently the case; indeed, it could have the opposite effect. As members may be aware, almost all the time limits in question can be extended, case by case, on application to the Crown Office. The changes were made following discussion with justice agencies, which noted that, at a time of significant pressure on court resources, it would not have been an efficient use of court time to have to hold individual case hearings in potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of cases.

That reasoning is the basis on which an extension to the effect of the changes is being sought in the bill. It is anticipated that the resource pressures caused by the backlog will last for a number of years. Retaining the suspension periods as part of the operation of time limits is a policy that is designed to adapt to a changing environment. Over time, as steps are taken to reduce backlogs in the criminal justice process, it is expected that the suspension periods will not be needed to be used as extensively when someone is subject to court proceedings, and that when they are needed, they should not need to be used to their maximum extent.

The numbers involved should reduce each year, but it is crucial that flexibility is retained to allow for effective and efficient prioritisation throughout the recovery and renewal period for the processing of court cases. I therefore invite Pauline McNeill not to move amendment 7. Amendment 8 seeks to expire the provision that allows the court to admit evidence by statement when a witness is unable to attend the trial because of a risk attributable to coronavirus, for example because they are self-isolating or shielding, and when it is not reasonably practicable for them to give evidence in any other competent manner. That legislative change helps to minimise the impact of the outbreak on the ability of courts to proceed with trials, and so ensure that the justice system continues to operate as effectively as possible. It is especially important at a time when a number of people are required to self-isolate.

It should be remembered that section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 already permits statements to be used in evidence in court when a person is, among other things, unfit to give evidence. However, that provision does not cover people who are unable to attend court because they are self-isolating for public health reasons. The measure should be considered along with the provisions that allow witnesses to give evidence remotely. Evidence by statement would only ever be admissible where the witness could not give evidence in a competent manner. Someone who is self-isolating cannot easily be in contact with others, which includes when giving evidence remotely, as the courts would not generally permit evidence to be given remotely without safeguards through the presence of others to ensure that evidence was being given in a fair manner. My concern is that the provision does not seem to apply exclusively to a witness or a complainer who is isolating.

I can understand why the cabinet secretary might want the provision, but can he confirm that the power would not generally be used when someone was not fit to attend? Some of the lawyers I have spoken to say that the provision is not specific in its drafting. That is only part of the concern, but it is a concern. I will reflect on that point and take some further advice. The body of the argument that I am putting forward is that the provision would be utilised only where it was impossible for evidence to be given in a competent manner. I think that that is the crucial test. Our court system operates on the assumption and presumption that evidence is given in a competent manner. Therefore, the provision would not be utilised unless there were very limited circumstances that surrounded the giving of evidence in a particular case. To complete the point that I was making before I accepted the intervention, it is not the case that a person could simply give evidence from their home, because safeguards would have to be in place to ensure that evidence was being given in a fair manner.

Judges will assess the weight to be attached to evidence introduced by statement and may be expected to take into account the fact that it has not been given on oath or subject to cross-examination. Where evidence in the form of a statement is introduced in a jury trial, the judge is obliged to give a warning to the jury that the evidence was not given on oath and was not tested by cross-examination. In appropriate cases, a judge may disregard such evidence or direct a jury to disregard it. Nothing in the provision detracts from the duty of the court to consider the fairness of the trial and to keep the fairness of the trial under review, which I think is the significant reassurance that Pauline McNeill requires.

On the basis of that assurance, I invite her not to move amendment 8. I am sorry to prolong the debate, but it is an important matter. The cabinet secretary’s statement might offer reassurance to members in the chamber but it does not offer reassurance to the Law Society of Scotland, which stated explicitly: “We cannot … support the extension of hearsay provisions” as detailed by the Government. What does the cabinet secretary say to the Law Society of Scotland? Obviously, there are many issues on which we find common ground with the Law Society of Scotland, which is an important commentator on these questions. What we are trying to do is to put in place measures as part of a number of steps to try to address the substantive court backlog problem that we must address for all the legitimate reasons that Mr Greene and Pauline McNeill have raised about the remand situation, which is of concern to all of us, regardless of our perspective in this debate. Amendments 9 and 10 would expire the provisions in the bill relating to community orders.

Although all powers relating to community orders in the 2020 act are exceptional, significant risk and uncertainty remain, and the provisions are necessary to ensure that justice social work services do not become overwhelmed, especially as new orders from courts increase as the backlog is addressed. A number of provisions relating to community orders are being expired, and those that are being retained are necessary at this time.

We are seeking to retain the provisions that extend the time limit for the completion of unpaid work or other activity requirements in community payback orders to 12 months from the date when the order was imposed, or such longer period that the court specifies in the order. If amendment 9 were agreed to, the time periods would revert to three months for level 1 unpaid work or other activity requirement and six months for level 2 unpaid work or other activity requirement. That would put additional strain on the system at a time when significant pressures remain. It would also require lower-level orders to be prioritised, as they would have shorter timescales.

We are also seeking to retain a power to allow for regulations to be made by Scottish ministers to vary or revoke requirements imposed on community payback orders. Amendment 10 would expire that power. Regulations to reduce unpaid work requirements in existing community payback orders by 35 per cent, with exceptions for domestic abuse, sexual offending and stalking, were scrutinised and approved by Parliament. All existing orders imposed up to and including 15 March were reduced.

The regulations did not affect orders made after 15 March. Amendment 23 seeks to revoke those regulations, which is surprising given that they were approved by Parliament so recently and have already taken effect. The regulations are a proportionate measure that has helped to address the unavoidable build-up of unpaid work resulting from essential public health restrictions while ensuring that those on community orders still serve the majority of their sentence. Amendment 10 would prevent the Government from implementing a similar measure up to March 2022, if it considered it necessary and proportionate to ease the pressure on the system.

To aid Covid-19 recovery work in 2021-22, approximately £11.8 million has been allocated for use by justice social work services to directly address the impact of the pandemic. Although the regulations and the funding mitigated risks to the system, there remains a risk of community justice services being overwhelmed, as unpaid work simply cannot be delivered in reasonable timescales due to necessary public health restrictions and increasing demand. Current advice from justice partners suggests that such a scenario of court disposal capacity exceeding community justice capacity in the months ahead is a realistic prospect, and it therefore presents an on-going risk. Although the Scottish Government is working with national and justice partners to mitigate the risk as far as possible, it is important to extend the provisions as set out in the bill to ensure that there is flexibility in the system in case it is required.

I assure members that there are no current plans to use those powers. Social Work Scotland states that it supports the extension of the proposals as outlined in the bill, noting that justice social work continues to face a significant challenge due to the pandemic and that the extension will ensure that, should there be a resurgence of Covid-19, action can be taken swiftly to mitigate any further impact. I urge members to reject amendments 9, 10 and 23, which are in Mr Greene’s name.

I thank Pauline McNeill for her amendment 27, which would introduce a statutory requirement for a one-off report on the use of fiscal fine powers. I accept in principle the policy that lies behind the amendment, but I ask her not to move it, and I commit to developing a revised amendment that takes account of the following concern. As drafted, the amendment would require the Scottish ministers to comment on the appropriateness of the use of fiscal fine powers by the Lord Advocate. As members will know, the Lord Advocate carries out prosecutorial functions entirely independently of any other person, and it would not be appropriate for such comments to be made by Scottish ministers. However, I accept the rest of the amendment in principle. It would provide a useful one-off report on the usage of fiscal fine powers, to complement the reporting that the Lord Advocate gave directly to the Justice Committee.

I understand that the Lord Advocate agrees with the approach and I hope that Pauline McNeill is also content with it. I will develop a revised amendment for consideration at stage 3 tomorrow. I urge members to reject amendments 11 and 22. Amendment 11 would remove the only power of emergency release from prison that exists, and would do so during an on-going pandemic. That power has been needed once and, although we have no plans to use it again, expiring it would be an imprudent action, given the uncertainty about the on-going impact of coronavirus. Amendment 22 would revoke two existing regulations that have been laid under that power. Revoking the Release of Prisoners (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 would have absolutely no impact, given that the time periods that were set in them are long past.

Revoking the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Temporary Modifications) (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Regulations 2020, would remove the changes that were made to extend victim notification to cover release arrangements. Therefore, I urge members to reject amendment 22. I offer my apologies, Presiding Officer, for detaining Parliament for so long on this important and detailed grouping. I call Pauline McNeill to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 4. I begin by agreeing with Alex Cole-Hamilton and Jamie Greene that this has been a very rushed process. In some ways, what we are trying to do is impossible, because on the one hand we are trying to defend the interests of justice, and on the other we understand some of the issues facing the Government in relation to managing the courts. I will first address amendment 6, on fiscal fines. The cabinet secretary says that fiscal fines enable a greater number of cases to be diverted.

We do not know what kinds of crime those cases would involve, but the use of fiscal fines would be based on recovery from coronavirus. I note that the cabinet secretary said that retaining the provision would not be desirable in the longer term. That is an important statement to me. I do not support the general increase of fiscal fines to £500. If I can be so bold as to differ with the Lord Advocate, I imagine that fiscal fines of £500 would be used to deal with fairly high-tariff crime. The Parliament would have a legitimate interest if fiscals were issuing fiscal fines for what we regard as serious crime.

Members may say that that might never happen, but I would say that it is quite legitimate for the Parliament to have an interest in that for the reason that I have given. However, if the cabinet secretary is indicating that the provision will be used primarily in Covid times, I am less concerned about it. Amendment 7 relates to time limits. I think that Jamie Greene said that we are in an impossible position, and I agree with him.

On the one hand, I am very exercised about long delays to court proceedings, not just for the accused but for victims, and I am generally not happy about extending time limits. However, I appreciate that there are difficulties finding court venues across the country that are suitable for to social distancing. I have some sympathy with that, but I remind Parliament that the law says that someone in custody awaiting trial should wait no longer than 140 days. Shortly after our discussion of the bill, we will need to think about how we can return to that provision, which, after all, is the current law.

In relation to reporting procedures, I seek to withdraw amendment 4, on the basis that the cabinet secretary will write to me on that specific issue. He said that the amendment duplicates existing reporting mechanisms in Scottish prisons. I would like to hear from him about whether prisoners are getting out of their cells and outdoors, particularly in light of coronavirus. I will move amendment 8, on hearsay. I listened to what was said about the hearsay principle helping to minimise disruption. Given that section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 already permits hearsay evidence on application to the court when a person is not fit to give evidence, the provision that amendment 8 seeks to expire is not needed. I know that the cabinet secretary will return to the point, but it does not seem, from the wording in the legislation, that that provision is to be used for exclusively for evidence from those who are isolating due to coronavirus.

Hearsay evidence is seldom used in the courts, and section 259 is not used often, but the provision is dangerous and, for the reasons outlined by Jamie Greene, we must be very careful about its use. In the interests of justice, and to be absolutely fair to the accused, any statement can be cross-examined. I realise that the provision is intended only for extreme circumstances, but given that relevant provisions already exist, I will move amendment 8. Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendment 5, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendments 16 and 24. I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that I am an owner of a rental property in North Lanarkshire.

In the stage 1 debate yesterday, I highlighted guidance issued by the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, which states: “Housing has become the front line defence against the coronavirus.” At all points of the pandemic, the key public health advice to people has been to isolate at home, no matter whether they have symptoms, have been in close contact with a confirmed case or have Covid 19. With that in mind, I lodged amendments that would have extended the eviction ban to level 1 and 2 areas to protect those threatened with eviction, through no fault of their own, due to a global pandemic, and to protect their ability to isolate at home under any of those circumstances. However, because of the way that the Government has drafted the bill, those amendments have been deemed out of scope. Since Jackie Baillie’s amendment 1 has been withdrawn and the Deputy First Minister talked yesterday about supporting policies raised by Opposition members that can be taken forward without the need for legislation, I hope that the eviction ban is at the top of his list.

In the absence of an ability to amend the bill to include a ban, I lodged amendment 5, which would require ministers, for as long as the legislation is in force, to report on the efficacy of measures to protect tenants in Scotland from eviction. The amendment would hold the Scottish ministers accountable for their policy decisions in that area and place the reporting requirement on a statutory footing that would ensure that the Parliament was fully aware of the effect of the Government’s decisions on some of the people made most vulnerable by the effects of the pandemic. I turn to the other amendments in the group. The Scottish Government’s £10 million tenant hardship loan fund was supposed to help people to avoid the risk of losing their home because of pandemic-related financial pressures. However, so far, only £490,000 has been paid out. Putting people into more and more debt is also not a viable solution to their housing debt. We have repeatedly called for the loan fund to be converted into a grant fund, and we welcome yesterday’s Government announcement to do just that. Amendments 16 and 24 should be considered together as a package.

If amendment 16 is agreed to but amendment 24 is disagreed to, tenants will be in a weaker position and I want to avoid that. Amendment 16 would expire all the pre-action checks that landlords must complete, under the current legislation, before raising a notification of proceedings against a tenant. However, amendment 24 would replace those provisions with a requirement that notices of proceedings against tenants cannot be raised until they have received a grant from the Government to pay off their rent arrears. The amendment would also give a statutory basis to the tenant hardship grant fund that the Government announced yesterday. The amendments have been lodged with the intention of supporting tenancies and ensuring that individuals and families are able to comply with one of the most important pieces of public health advice during the pandemic: isolate at home.

I ask members to support all the amendments in the group. I move amendment 5. The question of tenants’ rights and the evictions ban was subject to significant debate during stage 1 consideration of the bill yesterday. We have been clear that we support the provisions in the legislation that was passed last year to protect tenants, including the requirement of a six-month notice period prior to a landlord commencing proceedings for eviction, because it is right that tenants who are in financial difficulty get additional support while the Covid pandemic is impacting on the economy and people’s incomes. We would support the continuation of that six-month notice period for as long as that was appropriate. However, we recognise that concerns have been expressed by many groups about the long-term impact of an evictions ban being in place. We have had representations from registered social landlords, including the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations, which have pointed out the unintended consequences of a long-term ban. Those voices are right to point out that an evictions ban is not a solution to the problem; it simply postpones the problem.

The solution to the problem is to provide better financial support for tenants so that they are able to reach an agreement with their landlord about paying rent arrears. In that respect, I agree with Mark Griffin about the inadequacy of the loan fund, and I welcome yesterday’s announcement from the Deputy First Minister about the new grant scheme, although we do not yet have any details of how it will work. I turn to Mark Griffin’s amendments. Amendment 5, on additional reporting, seems reasonable, but I will listen to the Deputy First Minister’s response to it. As it stands, amendment 16 would remove protections from tenants, although I hear what Mark Griffin said about that amendment being tied in with amendment 24. However, amendment 24 seems very prescriptive in its terms. It refers to a grant scheme that has not yet been established. We do not know what the terms of the grant scheme will be. We do not know how generous it will be. We do not know whether it is realistic, as amendment 24 suggests, for every tenant to receive a grant that is equal to the full amount of the rent arrears that have been accrued.

I do not know whether any assessment has been done on the amount of money that would be involved in that. It seems premature, at best, to tie the question of evictions to access to a fund of which we have no details. Although I welcome Mark Griffin’s approach and the debate, we would struggle to support amendments 16 and 24 as they are drafted. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of amendments 5, 16 and 24, in the name of Mark Griffin.

An evictions ban that applies to all levels of Covid restrictions has been a central ask of the Scottish Labour Party for many weeks now. It is disappointing that the amendment to give effect to it has been ruled inadmissible, largely because the Scottish Government has quite deliberately made the legislation very narrow in its intent, such that many of the amendments that we and others sought to lodge were out of scope. The cabinet secretary points to a permanence bill, but the timescale for it is not altogether clear, and there will be a legislative gap in protection. Eviction orders are before the courts now, and people could be in danger of losing the roofs over their heads, all because the protection applies only in levels 3 and 4, when it should apply in all levels while the restrictions continue, the economy is still struggling and people are about to come off furlough without knowing whether they have a job to return to.

Things are financially precarious and, on that basis, I welcome John Swinney’s response to Labour’s demands to turn the tenant hardship fund from a loan fund to a grant fund. We know that the loan fund was not fit for purpose, given that it disbursed less than 5 per cent of the money that was available, and it rejected double the number of applications that it approved. When the Government does the right thing, praise is deserved, but the cabinet secretary needs to urgently tell members what the criteria for the fund will be, when it will be operational, whether it will convert the small number of loans that have already been made into grants, and whether, in the interim, it will defer loan repayments.

It is important that people who are in debt and who are struggling are not saddled with more debt. If we are to prevent people from losing their homes, there is no time to waste in setting up the fund, and no barriers should be put in the way of people’s access to it Amendment 5 asks the Government to report on evictions. It is a much weaker amendment than we wanted, but it is the only version that would be considered admissible.

I say to the Government that amendment 5 is critical, because we need to work harder to understand what is happening with evictions, and use the fund to prevent evictions when they are matter of hardship due to Covid. I urge members to support amendments 5, 16 and 24 in Mark Griffin’s name. Amendment 5 seeks to amend the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 by placing an additional reporting requirement on the Scottish ministers in relation to the operation of schedule 1 to the act, on eviction from dwelling houses. Subsection (1) of the section that amendment 5 would introduce is drawn widely, and it is unclear whether it refers to adequate “protection for tenants” on social, economic or health grounds.

Subsection (1) would also require the Scottish ministers to set out any “limitations in protection for tenants” that are encountered—which provision is also widely drawn—together with the reasons why such limitations exist. That would make the reporting requirement cumbersome and, in some cases, potentially impossible to comply with. In addition, much of the information is already publicly available and is included in the bimonthly reports that are and will continue to be produced for the schedule 1 provisions.

For example, the bimonthly reports set out how many orders to evict have been issued by the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland housing and property chamber, as well as levels of rent arrears in the social rented sector. However, we are always seeking to improve the data that we collect, and the Scottish Government is working with local authorities and the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers in order to collect new data to better understand what evictions are taking place across the country and for what reasons. As we develop new sources of data, they will be reflected in bimonthly reports and I would be happy to discuss some of the issues and how we can enhance the reporting with Mr Griffin and other interested members to ensure that the reports that we supply to the Parliament for scrutiny meet the legitimate aspirations for information that Mr Griffin has highlighted today. In its dashboard report, the Scottish Housing Regulator already reports on the number of notices and proceedings that have been issued to tenants in social housing, and on the total value of rent arrears in the social housing sector that have accumulated during the reporting period.

For those reasons, I do not think that it is necessary to proceed with amendment 5 and I urge members not to support it. I am surprised that Mr Griffin has lodged amendment 16, which would expire the pre-action requirements for rent arrears on the one hand but, through amendment 24, seek to preserve them until such time as all tenants who are applying for or receiving a loan under the tenant hardship loan fund have received a grant for their rent arrears. Amendment 24 appears to be designed to enable the continuation of pre-action requirements until such time as all tenants in Scotland have all their rent arrears paid by the grant from the Scottish Government or another body. In any event, amendment 24 would be time limited because the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020 will, by virtue of the current bill, expire either in March 2022 or September 2022.

We will make sure that everyone who is in receipt of a loan through our tenant hardship loan fund is made aware of the £10 million tenant grant fund that I announced yesterday. If people who are in receipt of a loan are eligible for a grant, they will be able to take that up. Mr Fraser made the fair point that, in relation to the details of the tenant hardship loan fund, amendment 24 is rather premature. We intend to consult stakeholders over the summer and introduce the grant fund later in the year. Again, I would be prepared to engage with members—as would the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government—about the approach to the tenant hardship loan fund. The pre-action requirements formalise the steps that all landlords should be taking to support tenants who have accrued rent arrears, which is why we committed in “Housing to 2040”, our long-term national strategy for housing, that we would take steps to place pre-action requirements on a permanent footing. The move to introduce pre-action requirements permanently has been broadly welcomed by tenant and landlord representatives alike. I confirm that our consultation on a permanence bill will seek views on making the pre-action requirements permanent, to prevent any gap until that bill is superseded by any future housing bill.

Jackie Baillie raised the issue of the timescale on the permanence bill. We are consulting on the bill over the summer and the Parliament will then scrutinise it after the summer recess. Mr Griffin’s amendments to expire the pre-action requirements on the one hand and to continue them, in effect, on the other are therefore unnecessary. In addition, they would introduce complexity for tenants and landlords as to when the pre-action requirements actually apply. That complexity does not currently exist, so I ask members to reject amendments 16 and 24. I take on board members’ comments about this group of amendments and I concede that they are not ideal. We are left in this situation because of how the bill has been drafted. We would like to have lodged amendments that extended the ban on evictions to level 1 and 2 restriction areas, but that has not been possible. I take on board the points that the Deputy First Minister makes about amendment 5 and the range of support mechanisms that are already in place.

I will seek to withdraw amendment 5, and I will consider the Deputy First Minister’s points and have discussions between now and the deadline for lodging stage 3 amendments to consider whether it would be appropriate to lodge amendment 5 again. On amendments 16 and 24, as I said earlier, I would not want amendment 16 to pass if amendment 24 failed. The intention of the amendments is to ensure, as much as possible, that while the emergency powers are still in place, no evictions can be carried out until the grant fund is put in place.

Again, I have listened closely to the Deputy First Minister’s points and will review the amendments overnight, with a view to potentially lodging them again, so I will not move amendments 16 and 24. Can I confirm that you seek to withdraw amendment 5? Yes, that is correct. Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn. Section 2—Expiry of provisions The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. On a point of order, Convener. My digital machine did not pick up my vote; if I had been able to vote, I would have voted yes. I will ensure that that is recorded. On a point of order, Convener. My device would not let me vote. I would have voted yes. I will ensure that that is recorded. On a point of order, Convener. My vote did not register. I would have voted yes. I will ensure that that is recorded. On a point of order, Convener. My device did not record my vote. I would have voted no. I will ensure that that is recorded.

On a point of order, Convener. My app was not working either, and I would have voted no. I will ensure that that is recorded. The result of the division is: For 62, Against 59, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. Members should vote now. The vote has closed. On a point of order, Convener. Apologies, I got the error message. I would have voted no. Thank you. We will ensure that your vote is recorded. The result of the division is: For 33, Against 88, Abstentions 0. I will suspend the meeting for a short comfort break. The next group of amendments is on admission of public to meetings. Amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendment 13. There are two amendments in the group—my amendment 12, which relates to licensing boards, and amendment 13, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, which relates to meetings of councils, and which I support. Yesterday, the First Minister gave an unusually upbeat statement to Parliament, albeit with her usual caveats. If we are to take her at her word, life should return to something like normal in the next few weeks.

Social distancing should be coming to an end by August: we will be able to go to the theatre and return to watching football in numbers next to our mates, and office staff will get back to work with colleagues and not just chat to them using Teams. You never know—MSPs might be able to occupy all the seats in the chamber by September, which would be a good thing. If all that happens by September—it should, if we believe the First Minister—and if we judge by the figures that she has announced, there is simply no reason at all left for why licensing boards and councils should be able to exclude the public from their meetings.

The public health reasons for having the restrictions were good, because they allowed licensing boards and councils to continue, but those reasons do not now exist. By the end of September, physical distancing will not be a thing, so licensing boards and councils should be meeting in public—not virtually—by that point. Public access to such meetings is an essential part of our democracy, so to allow the restrictions to go on longer—it could be up to a year longer, when the public would not be allowed into the meetings—would be beyond the pale. There is no reason to allow it. I move amendment 12. I am grateful to Graham Simpson for his comments. I rise to speak to amendment 13 and I offer support to Graham Simpson’s amendment 12. Paragraph 13 of schedule 6 to the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 has modified section 50A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to read: “The public are to be excluded from a meeting of a local authority whenever it is likely that, if members of the public were present, there would be a real and substantial risk to public health due to infection or contamination with coronavirus.” There has remained a requirement on authorities to publish an agenda and minutes of all meetings, but that was the extent of the reach of the requirements of publication.

When we passed the first coronavirus act in spring last year, we were in the first wave of the pandemic. Those weeks of high infection required that Parliament second guess the causes and mitigation of community transmission. As it stood then, paragraph 13 made absolute sense; we had banned all public gatherings, closed all hospitality, prevented people from being together in enclosed spaces and asked them to stay at home. It was self-evident that should people attend in-person meetings of a local authority, they would pose a substantial risk to public health and could spread infection. Paragraph 13 gave local authorities the option to exclude the public from in-person meetings based on a subjective assessment. It was the best that we could do at the time, but those times have changed. By the end of September, cinemas and theatres will, likely, be operating almost normally. We might even have dispensed with any form of social distancing and face coverings, because our citizens no longer represent the real and substantial risk to public health that they did in March last year.

It is crucial to remember that the end of September would come just six months before the start of the local authority election campaign. To allow the provision to continue could allow local authorities to proceed with unpopular decisions away from the scrutiny of the electorate, by whom they will be held accountable in just a few months’ time. I understand that we are not clear of the pandemic and that new surges and variants might once again create a heightened risk to health, but the bill will continue ministers’ powers to take measures that are sufficient to mitigate the risk of any activity, up to and including a stay-at-home order. In short, paragraph 13 of schedule 6 of the first 2020 coronavirus act is no longer needed, and its use in such close proximity to a local authority election would undermine the democratic accountability of our councils and councillors. Removing it would not compel local authorities that are still meeting virtually to broadcast their proceedings if they do not have the technology or resources to do so, but it is our hope and expectation that, when the first two coronavirus acts expire and fall away, our local authorities will be able to meet in person once again.

Some of the biggest decisions that affect my constituents and those of other members take place in our local councils—on planning, on education or even on the local recovery from the pandemic. People at the business end of those decisions need a line of sight to how they came about. Paragraph 13—well intentioned though it was at the time—no longer has a place in the pages of the legislation or, indeed, in our democracy. Amendment 12 would expire the provisions relating to the ability of licensing boards to exercise their discretion as to whether to hold meetings in public due to coronavirus. Although we are making good progress with the vaccine roll-out, the recent rise in cases indicates that new variants, such as the delta variant, might come to the fore and create further challenges and difficulties.

Mr Simpson is, however, right to have characterised our assessment as being more optimistic than it has been for some time. Licensing stakeholders have welcomed the flexibility that has been provided by the provision since its introduction in the first coronavirus act, and are broadly content for the provision to be extended beyond 30 September, on the ground that we cannot say with any certainty that new variants will not arise. Licensing stakeholders support the holding of meetings in person, but we and they agree that the added flexibility is important to ensure that the alcohol licensing regime can function, should there be a requirement to reimpose restrictions throughout Scotland or on a local authority basis. The effect of amendment 12 could be that users of the alcohol licensing system would be unable to receive an effective service from licensing boards, including being unable to sell alcohol. That would be unfortunate and counterproductive at a time when we are all keen to do all that we can to support the hospitality sector.

My officials engage regularly with licensing stakeholders and have been made aware of examples of good practice that has enabled members of the public to view proceedings online. Of course, if anyone is participating formally during proceedings as an objector, necessary arrangements are put in place by the licensing board to ensure their participation in meetings. For those reasons, I oppose amendment 12, and I ask members to oppose it, too. I turn to amendment 13, which is in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Scotland’s local authorities have responded extremely well in order to keep essential services available during the pandemic. Crucial to ensuring that that has been possible has been allowing governance structures in councils to continue to operate so that decisions about services can continue to be scrutinised and made. The provision in question was never about universally excluding the public from local authority meetings; it was only ever to be applied at physical meetings where there was a risk of transmitting Covid. At all times, the Scottish Government, in the interests of openness, democracy and transparency, strongly encourages councils to make every effort to live stream their meetings to the public.

We believe that the provision has enabled local authorities to continue to function and conduct committee business while simultaneously taking action to reduce and suppress the spread of the virus. Councils have reacted well to the changing environment and have acted quickly to implement new governance arrangements that are safe and flexible. For example, all 32 councils now have arrangements in place to support remote meetings. In light of that, and recognising that the provision was being used only in limited situations by some councils, we recommend that Parliament supports amendment 13, which is in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. I will press amendment 12. I am slightly confused by the Deputy First Minister’s response. On one hand, I am encouraged that he agrees with Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 13, but on the other I am utterly baffled as to why he would agree that councils should meet in public but not agree that licensing boards should do so.

Licensing boards are made up of councillors, so they are, essentially, the same thing—a meeting of councillors, who are just dealing with different matters. Therefore, there is no logic to what the Deputy First Minister has said. I encourage members to back both amendments in the group, because they would do the same thing. They are about democratic accountability. I used to be on a licensing board.

I therefore know that licensing matters can be contentious, so it is important that the public are allowed to sit in on those meetings. In my earlier comments, I accepted that the restrictions were necessary at the time and that they have allowed licensing boards to continue, but there is no reason for the restrictions to persist. The question is, that amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson, be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division on amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson, is: For 54, Against 66, Abstentions 0. The next group of amendments is on business support. Amendment 14, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 26. In relation to amendment 14 on irritancy measures in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020, the Government has listened to the views of stakeholders and has lodged the amendment in order for those provisions to be extended beyond 30 September 2021. Although initial discussions with stakeholders indicated that there was general support for the expiry of those measures from 30 September, we have since listened to further representations, including from the Federation of Small Businesses, and given the uncertainty that exists regarding when coronavirus restrictions in Scotland can be removed completely, we have reconsidered expiring the provisions.

As other Government support initiatives, such as the furlough scheme, begin to wind down, it is likely that some viable small businesses might face short-term cash-flow difficulties over the summer, into the autumn and beyond. In those circumstances, we would want landlords to grant their tenants some further flexibility. We believe that retaining the increased notice period beyond 30 September makes that more likely. The extensions that have been afforded under the provision to date have helped landlords and tenants by giving them time to come to revised rental arrangements on an agreed basis without the need to seek eviction. As eviction has always been possible under the Scottish provisions, it is considered that these would largely have already taken place in the 18 months from the commencement of the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020, and this proportionate response will now continue, hopefully without the need for evictions, as our aim is to keep businesses afloat and retain employment.

The Scottish Government is therefore happy to listen to the views of stakeholders and proposes this change to the bill. I urge members to support my amendment 14. I turn to amendment 26. Since March last year, business support has been offered through the existing powers of local authorities, the enterprise networks and a range of other public bodies, rather than under specific provisions of the coronavirus legislation. Further, decisions on business support have been taken in response to emerging pressures and there is no allocated budget for future financial support. Future funding options will be contingent to a large extent on funding decisions that are made by the United Kingdom Government. As restrictions are brought to an end, decisions on any further support will be made to support recovery and economic transformation in the longer term. That may continue to change substantially over a longer timescale than the two months within which amendment 26 would require a report to be made to Parliament. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 includes a range of improved tools for local transport authorities to improve bus services in their areas, recognising that buses are a local service and should be tailored to meet local communities’ needs.

However, I am sympathetic to what Mr Sweeney proposes and the Government will lodge a stage 3 amendment tomorrow to reflect some of the issues that are raised by his proposal. I look forward to hearing his remarks. I move amendment 14. While Covid-19 continues to disrupt livelihoods, we must have measures in place to support people and adequately protect them from the fallout of the pandemic. Businesses have required financial support from the Government, which has been paid in millions to mitigate the adverse impacts of Covid-19. However, we could be doing more to conditionalise that business support with a view to achieving better economic and social outcomes—for example, fairer work obligations and enhancement of our public transport system.

My amendment 26 would require the Scottish ministers to lay before Parliament, as soon as reasonably practical and within two months of royal assent, a report on the implications for business support of the extension or expiry of provisions in the act. The report would have to include, in particular, consideration of further support that businesses required. The key thing would be whether business support had been adequate over the period—we know that it has often not been adequate. The Government should be required to consider, in particular, whether those who have felt the impacts of the pandemic disproportionately—such as wedding businesses, entertainment establishments, nightlife businesses, taxi drivers and the self-employed—have been adequately supported. We should also consider whether any limitations or conditionality should be placed on the provision of further support, including whether conditions related to fair work practices should be placed on businesses of a certain size that receive support.

The Welsh Government has been seeking to explore that. In particular, I would like to explore the idea of introducing an element of compulsion when it comes to the provision of further support to a large business with at least 250 employees that does not recognise a trade union. In fair work terms, all large companies should be open to trade union organisation in their workplaces. The rise in precarious work that we have seen since the financial crisis in 2008 has been compounded by the pandemic. Some 35 per cent of Scottish workers say that they often get less than a week’s notice of shifts. Pre-pandemic, four in 10 of those who worked in retail and wholesale were paid less than the living wage, according to the Resolution Foundation. Fair work practices are even more pertinent than they were before, especially as we look towards the longer term and recovery.

I also want ministers to consider the suitability of taking equity shares in private bus companies instead of simply providing grant-based support with few strings attached. In the year of COP26, we should be investing in a green, publicly owned public transport system. Last year, the Government gave £191 million of no-strings subsidies to private bus company owners and underspent the transport budget by £343 million. Indeed, the total allocated budget for bus firms between the start of the pandemic and October this year is £288 million. We could be doing so much more with that investment to effect meaningful change and reforms in our public transport system.

As the grant terms are currently conditionalised, they only oblige bus companies to continue to deliver around 30 per cent of bus service levels for the period of the scheme, in order to maintain core services, and to continue engagement with relevant local authorities and health boards to determine what bus services should be operated when and on what routes. I would like the benefit from that money to be used to buy shares in those companies, with a long-term view to increasing public ownership. Single fares on privatised First Glasgow services are now £2.50, compared with £1.80 on Edinburgh’s publicly owned Lothian Buses services. In Glasgow, we need our regional transport authority, Strathclyde partnership for transport, to use the powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 to re-regulate our region’s entire bus network through franchising. That would allow us to plan routes, cap fares and ensure the same standards of accessibility, emissions, staff training, staff conditions and much more across the whole region.

Everyone in Scotland is entitled to a world-class integrated public transport service. I hope that the measures that I have proposed meet with the approval of members. Paul Sweeney has raised a number of significant points in amendment 26 and his comments on it, and I am happy to consider how that and a variety of other requests for additional reporting requirements in the various amendments that we have heard today can be considered further in tomorrow’s discussions.

Amendments 4, 5, 18, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 all seek additional reporting requirements, and I would like the opportunity to reflect on the issues and to formulate amendments to be lodged for stage 3. I want to ensure that the legitimate request for further reporting can be integrated into the already significant reporting requirements that the Government fulfils—and is happy to fulfil—to Parliament in this respect. I urge Paul Sweeney not to move his amendment and to give us the opportunity to formulate proposals that can be considered in tomorrow’s session. The next group is on social security. Amendment 17, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 28 and 29. As members will know, I am a bit new to this, so I thank the chamber desk team, my staff, the Labour support unit and colleagues across the chamber for all their help. I ask members to be patient with me as I talk to the amendments in an odd order, taking amendments 17 and 29 together and providing a bit of explanation, and coming back later to amendment 28.

Scottish Labour is clear that, had the scope of the bill been wider, we would have sought to do more to ensure that people were protected for a while longer, and we would have sought to add provisions that are needed to meet the challenges that lie ahead. For example, had the scope of the bill been wider, I would have been moving an amendment today to continue and extend the provisions that were put in place to support carers and disabled people.

Specifically, we would have wanted to double the carers allowance supplement again this year, as was done in 2020, and to continue doing so until the end of the pandemic, which would make a huge difference to the thousands of unpaid carers in Scotland. Recognising that disabled people faced additional costs before the pandemic and that we have not begun to assess the impact that the pandemic has had on that group of people, we would have sought to use the opportunity to discuss a Covid payment to disabled people and to implement a £5 uplift to the Scottish child payment for families that include a disabled person.

Introducing such a supplement now and increasing it to £10 by 2022-23 would lift approximately 10,000 children out of poverty. As we heard earlier from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, we are—sadly—on track to miss our child poverty targets by 4 per cent, which makes it even more frustrating that we have not been able to do that today. Navigating the bill—any bill, I imagine—is tricky, especially for the first time. Had all our amendments been in scope, the first thing that we would have needed to do was extend the powers in the act that provide for the double payment of the carers supplement, rather than expire them.

That is what amendment 17 sought to do. That amendment was ruled in scope but, sadly, the amendments to double the supplement and make the payments were ruled out of scope. Therefore, amendment 17 is somewhat null. However, I hope that the chamber will appreciate that that was perhaps an imperfect situation and will understand and be patient with the first-time attempts to bring scrutiny and impactful change to an issue of this gravity, with meaningful discussion in the chamber. I do not intend to press amendment 17.

Here is where the other amendments come in. As we are not able to call for those policies as we would have liked to in this debate on the bill, we are instead seeking a commitment, through amendment 29, that, within one month of the bill receiving royal assent, the Government will produce a report on the expiry of the current provisions that are intended to protect carers and families with disabled people in them and on whether further measures, including those that we have set out, and a Covid payment for disabled people, are required. Had we been able to, Scottish Labour would also have sought to take the opportunity that is presented by this bill to introduce self-isolation payments for all adults who are forced to self-isolate.

The chamber will be aware that some self-isolation grants are available at the moment, but they are available only to specific people and are subject to very specific eligibility requirements. However, as we know, Covid-19 does not pick and choose its effects, which is why it is clear that we must do more to offer support to those who are not able to access it, so that anyone who is asked to self-isolate does not see themselves out of pocket. As we have not been able to make that call directly, Scottish Labour is instead proposing, in amendment 28, that the Government publish a report on the effect of the provisions in the bill on the support that is available to people who are forced to self-isolate. Again, we would like to see that report no more than one month after the bill has received royal assent. I thank the chamber and the Presiding Officer for their patience. The amendments that I have lodged seek to draw attention to those serious issues, apply as much scrutiny as possible in the time that we have and encourage meaningful and impactful discussion, decision making and action on the part of members at this time.

I move amendment 17. I feel that there is absolutely no need for Pam Duncan-Glancy to apologise for detaining the chamber, given the length of time that I have gone on this afternoon. I am sure that that observation has attracted wide support from the Labour Party, despite the generosity of spirit that I have demonstrated today. Amendment 17 will prevent the expiry of the provisions relating to the carers allowance supplement in the 2020 act. The majority of increased payments of the carers allowance supplement were made in June 2020, and around 83,000 carers received an extra £230.10 to help them deal with the unprecedented circumstances of coronavirus and the additional pressures that were brought by lockdown. The provision is being expired as it is no longer necessary, because it relates only to the period from 1 April 2020 to 30 September 2020, and backdated payments in respect of that period can still be made notwithstanding expiry.

We absolutely value the support that is provided by unpaid carers and we have brought forward the Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill to support unpaid carers with an additional coronavirus carers allowance supplement payment. That will be paid with the December carers allowance supplement, as we did in June 2020. We proposed to do that through a stand-alone bill, as that allowed us to bring forward proposals for greater flexibility to make future payments to carers in receipt of carers allowance supplement, should they be required. Pam Duncan-Glancy has indicated that she will not press amendment 17, and I hope that what I have said provides the necessary reassurance to her of the Government’s intent in this area of activity. I acknowledge the significance of the points that she raises in relation to support for carers. The purpose of amendment 28 is to require ministers to produce a report assessing the effect that the expiry of provisions by the act is likely to have on the social security support that is available for carers. The report must consider whether, due to coronavirus, further measures are required to support carers, and whether a further coronavirus carers allowance supplement should be paid.

The report must also consider whether a Scottish child payment supplement of £5 should be made, where the payment is made in respect of a dependent child who has a disability. Where no further support is being provided, the report must set out the reasons for that. The Government absolutely values the role of unpaid carers and we have brought forward the bill to which I have referred to support unpaid carers with an additional coronavirus carers allowance supplement payment. The bill also seeks enabling powers to allow greater flexibility in making any future increases to the carers allowance supplement. I would like to reassure Parliament that there will be no impact on the support for unpaid carers through the expiry of the provisions.

I have placed on record the Government’s commitment in that respect. The reporting requirements in amendment 28 fall into the category of reporting requirements that I referred to in my earlier contribution. The Government will reflect on those issues as a consequence of the debate today, and I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to press the amendment, because the Government will bring back enhanced reporting requirements in a stage 3 amendment tomorrow. The Government is resisting amendment 29, which will mandate the publication of a report on the effect that the extension and expiry of provisions by the act will have on the support that is available for people who are self-isolating.

The same issues apply as with amendment 28—we will consider the reporting requirements and bring forward tomorrow a consolidated proposition that Parliament can consider. Therefore, I ask Parliament not to agree to any of the amendments in the group, on the understanding that the Government will bring forward enhancements to the reporting arrangements in stage 3 amendments tomorrow. I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 17. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the Deputy First Minister for his response. On the point about the Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill, which has come to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I think that we missed an opportunity by not doing some of that in the bill that is before us today. Then the bill that has gone to committee could have been on less of a tight timescale, which would have allowed us to consider issues such as bereavement payments. However, specifically on amendment 17, I understand that the reason to have the amendment is no longer there, because the amendment that we needed it for was considered out of scope.

On that basis, I will not press amendment 17. Before we move to the next group, members may wish to note that we are a little behind time—perhaps by five to 10 minutes. The next group is on social care support. Amendment 18, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendment 30. In the interests of time, I will speak just to amendment 18, and will do so briefly. Care homes were at the epicentre of the pandemic. Some 3,774 people died in our care homes of Covid-19.

That affected their families and it affected staff, and many more suffered from the virus but, thankfully, pulled through. At the start of the pandemic, there were issues with personal protective equipment, a lack of testing, and inconsistent and ever-changing guidance. Care homes across all sectors were crying out for support. Having an overview of what is happening in our care homes across Scotland is essential while the virus remains. I appreciate that the Care Inspectorate has resumed reporting on individual care homes, but that does not provide an overview of what is happening in care homes across Scotland. We are debating the extension of emergency powers, because we think that there is a continuing issue or a potential problem in the future.

I say to the cabinet secretary that, if vulnerable people in care homes were the worst affected during the pandemic, anything that monitors what is going on in care homes across Scotland is therefore critical and should be kept. Thank you. I move amendment 18. I call Craig Hoy. I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, in relation to— Sorry—I must interrupt you briefly. I made an error. I should have called Pam Duncan-Glancy to speak to amendment 30 and the other amendment in the group. Thank you, convener. I was pleased to have an extra moment or two to consider what I was going to say about the amendment. I am sure that we have made it clear by now that Scottish Labour would have looked to do a bit more with the bill had we been able to, including calling on local authorities to recommence care packages and respite care. With amendment 30, we have once again opted to lodge a reporting amendment to place a duty on Scottish ministers to lay a report before Parliament no more than one month after the bill receives royal assent, in this case so that we can understand the impact that ending or extending provisions in the act will have on social care services.

A report by the Scottish Human Rights Commission shows that the removal of care packages during the pandemic has had a direct and detrimental effect on disabled people’s human rights. It recommended that social care be reinstated to at least pre-pandemic levels. Many of us will have heard stories over the past year of individual people going through the pandemic and being left in degrading and inhumane situations as a result of losing their care. That is why we need to have a clear focus on this area.

Testimony gathered for the report was incredibly distressing reading: disabled people unable to wash or get out of bed, being left asleep in their wheelchairs, and having to leave their homes and move in with family. None of that is ever okay. The protection of social care services is vital—it is an investment that we need to make. We must ensure that disabled people get the care that they need and we must provide essential care and support for them to participate in society and lead an ordinary life. In the past year, due to the pandemic, that has not been the case. It is incredibly important that we continue to consider the impact that that has had on that group of people, which is why Labour lodged an amendment requiring the Government to report on it.

For the second time, I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests in relation to rental properties in my name. I will briefly address the amendments relating to social care. I welcome the Government’s intention to allow provisions relating to reporting by the Care Inspectorate contained in paragraph 22 of schedule 1 to the act to expire on 30 September. I recognise that, during the eye of the Covid storm, there was a huge focus on the activities in care homes—and rightly so.

Families, residents and care home staff were literally living in fear, and the regular reports addressed those legitimate concerns. However, we must remember that the root cause of the problem of transmission and deaths in our care homes often related to Covid-positive patients being discharged from a hospital setting into a social care setting. With vaccines now providing extensive safeguards, and care homes having put in place advanced infection control mechanisms, those reporting rules can now be relaxed. The system of fortnightly reporting by the Care Inspectorate to Parliament has put undue pressure on the Care Inspectorate to deliver those reports, which has removed it from its much-needed inspection and improvement work. It has prevented the normal relationships being restored and does not give care homes time to reflect on and respond to the reports before they are released publicly. Jackie Baillie’s amendment 18 has the effect of extending the provision for fortnightly reporting.

Given that that is the case, the Scottish Conservatives will not support it. However, we welcome amendment 30, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy. Although I have spoken out against the fortnightly reporting regime, amendment 30 seeks a one-off report by ministers to Parliament on issues that include exploring the effect of the extension and expiry of the act’s provisions on social and respite care, and identifies further measures that may be required to restore social care support packages and respite services to pre-pandemic levels. I believe that such a report, especially if it comes forward within one month of royal assent, will provide Parliament and our care providers with timely information that will assist in the restoration of vital social care services. The Scottish Conservatives support that objective and are content to support amendment 30. In relation to amendment 18, I have engaged with Scottish Care, which has serious concerns about the impact of the continuation of the reporting provisions on the Care Inspectorate’s ability to carry out its other obligations and provide support to care services.

I absolutely agree with Jackie Baillie that, given the situation that we have had during the pandemic, we have to have some form of overarching reporting and accountability. I would be grateful, therefore, if the cabinet secretary could commit to working with the Care Inspectorate and perhaps other parliamentary colleagues to bring something back at stage 3 that would not only reflect both sides of the issue but ensure that the Care Inspectorate has the ability to discharge its duties effectively and continue to improve standards of care. The Scottish Greens will support amendment 30. I have said before that when the history of Scotland’s pandemic is written, there will be no more tragic a story than what occurred in our care homes. They were missed out of pandemic exercise planning and then received more than 3,000 untested patients from hospital. Many families did not learn for months and months what really happened in the homes of their loved ones.

They deserved to have all the facts all along. The repercussions of the failure to protect care homes and their residents will continue to be sorely felt, which is why we need a public inquiry to start without delay. 18:30 I am very grateful to Jackie Baillie for lodging amendment 18. Scottish Liberal Democrats also considered whether there is a need to retain the additional care home reporting on inspections and deaths that was introduced at the start of the pandemic. The policy memorandum discusses that in some detail. Before the powers are expired, I would like to hear further assurances from the Deputy First Minister and his Government that that will not have an impact on the quality of reporting on care homes.

The policy memorandum says: “inspection reports are published usually within 10 days of the inspection.” I want to know what proportion take longer than that and whether there is a hard time limit for the publication of the reports. How will the Government ensure that there is still timely access to care home inspection reports? Are there any parts of the weekly reporting of deaths under the emergency powers that are not now covered by National Records of Scotland? Before the powers are expired, I would like the Deputy First Minister to guarantee that that will not have a negative impact on the quality of reporting on our care homes, because it has been hard enough over the past 15 months for families to acquire that important information. Jackie Baillie’s amendment 18 raises very difficult issues. Her fundamental concern is about ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in place in care homes and that they are applied effectively. That is an absolutely legitimate subject of inquiry. The question is not whether there should be scrutiny, reporting and gathering of information about performance in care homes; the question is how it can best be undertaken.

Gillian Mackay raised legitimate points—they are at the heart of the arguments on the matter. They were about whether all that would best be served by enabling the Care Inspectorate to carry out the long-standing previously agreed and legislated for scrutiny of individual care homes, or whether some resource has been distracted by the overarching reporting and analysis that were envisaged for the circumstances. The fortnightly reports on inspections—the 28th such report will be published this week—have been helpful in getting information into the public domain and in providing assurance to Parliament and the public, at a time when the level of anxiety about the safety and wellbeing of care home residents and staff has, understandably, been high.

However, preparing the fortnightly reports has reduced the Care Inspectorate’s capacity to carry out wider scrutiny activity, because inspectors are involved in preparation of additional reports. As we move into recovery and remobilisation, it is important that inspectors can refocus their attention on scrutinising and supporting all care services and not focus only on care homes that are at the highest risk from Covid-19. There is unnecessary duplication of effort. There has been a return to a near-normal pre-Covid process in which full inspection reports are published by the Care Inspectorate, usually within 10 days of an inspection. The result is that, in many cases, full reports are published at about the same time as the associated less-detailed parliamentary reports. Gillian Mackay asked me to consider whether, should Parliament not agree to amendment 18, wider synchronisation of reporting could be don. I undertake to examine that in advance of stage 3 tomorrow. On Alex Cole-Hamilton’s point, the weekly reporting of deaths in care homes has been heavily reliant on accurate reporting by care homes.

The official statistics that are published by National Records of Scotland are now well established and include data on care homes. I therefore urge members not to support amendment 18, but I give an assurance that I will explore the point that Gillian Mackay raised. I would like Parliament not to proceed with amendment 30, so that the Government can reflect on the matter and on wider scrutiny of the reporting requirements that can be included in the bill to enhance the existing reporting arrangements.

There have been a number of requests that we enhance reporting requirements. I would like the opportunity to consolidate those requests to allow reporting requirements to be put into the bill at stage 3, in order to ensure that Parliament is properly updated on and advised of performance against the requirements of the legislation. I urge Pam Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 30, on the basis that I will introduce reporting requirements at stage 3 tomorrow. I call Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 18. I am sure that it was not his intention, but I thought that Craig Hoy’s contribution perhaps suggested a degree of complacency. There is nothing normal about the pandemic. Care homes suffered the very worst of deaths, and Parliament put in place reporting mechanisms because we believed that they were needed. There is the possibility of new surges and new variants, and care homes are vulnerable in that context.

I understand that there might be capacity issues. I favour Gillian Mackay’s suggestion and, on the basis that the cabinet secretary does too, I am happy not to press amendment 18. I hope that the cabinet secretary will consider the matter and bring back an amendment tomorrow. The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division on amendment 20 is: For 55, Against 67, Abstentions 0. The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. The result of the division on amendment 22 is: For 33, Against 88, Abstentions 0. The next group is on marriages and civil partnerships. Amendment 25, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is the only amendment in the group. Amendment 25 is on a procedure to produce a report on “(a) social distancing requirements that remain in place, (b) the permissibility of live music,” and (c) limitations on indoor household gatherings”. Today there was a Government-inspired question, which Jackie Baillie referred to, on extended opening times for hospitality during Euro 2020, which have caused distress for parts of the hospitality sector that are not able to benefit from those provisions.

Amendment 25 asks for a report detailing the progress made towards ending restrictions in relation to weddings, permissibility of live music and limitations on indoor gatherings. The Scottish Wedding Industry Alliance said: “Yesterday’s announcement will not be the guidance everyone wanted, we’re also disappointed regarding dancing (something we campaigned for). We are continuing conversations to ask for the new guidance to go live on the Friday dates and we will carry on fighting for everyone.” Only yesterday, a constituent who is due to get married very soon wrote to me—they are not the first one—and said: “Some leeway would certainly make sense, all things considered.

Especially seeing as most of the wedding party will be fully vaccinated already. Surely that should count for something. We have a DJ hired which is costing almost £3000. A large deposit already paid when we thought the end of June would be the reopening date. It’s not even as if it’s going to be a rave, just some cringey dancing for a couple of hours”— I am only quoting here. [Laughter.] We are all thinking of weddings that we have been at where there has been “cringey dancing” but also a lot of enjoyment.

My constituent continued: “Also with indoor social distancing being reduced to 1 metre, you’d be closer to a stranger on a bus than you would be up having a dance.” He knows that I was going to read that out to give you all a laugh—he was definitely okay with that. It is a serious question. Many couples, along with people in the wedding and events sectors, are asking why people cannot dance until 19 July.

Will dancing really be such a high-risk activity? I hope that the cabinet secretary will give us some indication of what the clinicians are saying the risk really is. For the sake of nine days in my constituent’s case, there will be a big difference to that couple’s wedding. I ask the Government to focus on that, which is why I seek the reporting procedure in amendment 25. There is also a lack of clarity on some of the issues, and a report before Parliament might provide such clarity. Some announcements yesterday were very welcome—for example, the lifting of restrictions on bands from 28 June is very much welcomed by the live music sector—but there is a need for clarity on some of that. Today, Hireaband told me that it had reports of cancellations of ceilidh bands—such cancellations are obvious, because people cannot dance, and dancing is the purpose of a ceilidh band.

However, confusion is being caused: bands do not know whether to take the cancellation fee or to take another date. It seems a little arbitrary. Wedding receptions are of course the main thing, but pubs and clubs that rely on live entertainment are also keen to have that back. A mechanism for reporting after 9 August would give some clarity, because the Government would be required to say what restrictions, if any, were left in place. Finally, nothing has been said about what the provisions will mean for nightclubs after 9 August.

I hope that that issue can be included in the reporting procedure. England, Northern Ireland and Wales have mentioned nightclubs in their statements, but Scotland has not. What do the restrictions mean for live music venues and promoters? I believe that reporting on the restrictions will give some clarity to the live music sector, which it really needs. It would focus the Government’s mind on some things that it has perhaps not thought about and which are important to the sector. I move amendment 25. I rise briefly to support Pauline McNeill’s amendment. I think that it offers some hope to the sector and a signal that the Parliament finally has the wedding industry at the centre of its attention. Thousands of couples across Scotland have had the best day of their lives deferred or cancelled—in some cases more than once, and often at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds—because of decisions by the Parliament and the Government. It is only fair to adopt a reporting duty, as Pauline McNeill’s amendment prescribes.

If we do that, not only will we send a very important signal, but it will concentrate the minds of the ministers who are responsible for coming to those decisions. In that way, in situations such as we had last week, when much of Scotland expected to go down to level 1 but was kept in level 2 and, at a stroke, we had to halve the number of wedding guests at many weddings around the country, such things will be considered and there will be reporting to the Parliament. Scottish Liberal Democrat members are therefore happy to support Pauline McNeill’s amendment. I am grateful to Pauline McNeill for lodging amendment 25—well, I do not know that I am grateful, because this is a very challenging part of the debate. I accept that the issues that Pauline McNeill raised, whether on weddings or on the impact on the live music sector or venues as a whole, are of significance. This morning, I had a very helpful conversation with representatives of the Glasgow city centre task force, on which many live music venues are represented. A number of the points that Pauline McNeill made were raised during that discussion.

The concern that somehow those issues are not on the Government’s agenda is not, I assure Pauline McNeill, valid. The Government has wrestled with those questions, because none of us wants to have to disrupt or delay the life plans of individuals at such important moments in their lives. However, clinical advice and guidance inform our decisions. Yesterday, the First Minister set out our hope, subject to continued progress and the meeting of the caveats that we have set out, that the current requirements for 1m physical distancing will end once the country goes into level 0. Beyond that, we will remove all restrictions. There is therefore a clear pathway for the sector, so that it can understand the changes that are going to be made.

We are allowing live entertainment at weddings from 28 June. On the type of specific additional circumstance that Pauline McNeill raised, if she writes to me I will happily consider what can be done in such circumstances. I am trying to get as much clarity as possible, and I appreciate that there is a lot to consider. Does what the cabinet secretary said mean that, after 9 August, live music can be played without restrictions in pub venues, for example, as well as at weddings? It looks like that to me.

It would be good to get the clarity that we did not get yesterday. The short answer to Pauline McNeill is yes, but there will be other considerations: mitigating measures such as ventilation and wider hygiene requirements might well go with such an approach. I do not want to give a signal that we are going back to a pre-Covid situation, with absolutely no wider considerations; there will be conditions that have to apply. I discussed such issues at length with the Glasgow city centre task force this morning.

Over the next few weeks, we must go through some detailed dialogue with the live music sector and the wedding industry, to make sure that we cover off all the issues that need to be covered off. I assure Pauline McNeill that that will be done in dialogue with the sector. On that basis, I ask Pauline McNeill not to press amendment 25. I will reflect on her proposal—amendment 25 is one of the amendments on reporting requirements on which I have agreed to reflect. I do not think that the issues that she wants resolved need legislation; what is needed is for us to respond constructively to the legitimate issues that she has raised. I undertake to do that in preparation for the stage 3 debate tomorrow. There will be on-going dialogue with the sector, and I confirm that the Government will engage constructively in that dialogue in the weeks to come. I call Pauline McNeill to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 25. I welcome what the cabinet secretary has said. As I said, I am trying to get some clarity. The cabinet secretary knows, because there was a meeting with the wedding sector yesterday, that that sector and the wider night-time economy and hospitality sector have felt that engagement could have been a lot better.

Perhaps we are making important progress. I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on what I have been trying to achieve. There would be no harm in allowing some reporting. Mitigation measures make sense and would be expected. Let me reiterate two points. First, the Government is actively engaging with the wider sector. My colleagues have done a lot of work to engage with sectors over the Covid period and I, with my new responsibilities, give an absolute assurance that that will be the case across all the areas that we are talking about.

Secondly, the reporting requirements on which I will reflect in preparation for stage 3 are designed to ensure that Parliament receives proper and full reports on all aspects of the application of the legislation, and Pauline McNeill’s proposal can feature in that regard. I acknowledge that, but I again ask the cabinet secretary to acknowledge that the sector has been critical, albeit at a time when the issues were outwith his responsibilities. I just want to push the Government to engage with the wider hospitality sector—it is a diverse sector and includes live music, with all the risks that are attached to that—to ensure that we have the closest engagement and the greatest clarity as we ease restrictions.

On that basis, I will not press amendment 25. I call Paul Sweeney to move or not move amendment 26, which was debated with amendment 14. In the light of the Government’s commitment to bring forward amendments at stage 3, I will not move amendment 26, but I reserve the right to bring the amendment back if those amendments are not sufficient. I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to move or not move amendment 28, which was already debated with amendment 17. On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s commitment to report, I will not move the amendment. Similarly, I will not move amendment 29. I will not move amendment 30. I thank members for their support for that amendment. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill and concludes the meeting of the Committee of the Whole Parliament.

I close this meeting. There will now be a very short suspension.

.

As found on YouTube