Robin Swann
North Antrim · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his detailed statement. I know how passionate he is about the subject and how many times he has brought it to the Executive.”
“It has been reported that today will potentially be the warmest day of the year. As we move into the summer and our summer holidays, I want to raise public awareness of wildfires across Northern Ireland, which have been detrimental to farmland and our environment over the past number of years.”
“Wildfires are still having a detrimental impact on our environment and, occasionally, on livestock, but that reduction shows the impact of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service's proactive approach to educating the general public and engaging with rural communities and schools on its fire safety message, which is to stay alert, not…”
“There has been a lot of talk of sport in this place over the past few days, with everybody concentrating on UEFA. One sport that is going on across Northern Ireland at the minute is cross-community and goes across all age groups without fear, favour or distinction: pigeon racing.”
“I want to put on record that, since this place passed the amendment that recognised pigeon racing as a sport under the 2016 Act, over the past five years, pigeon racing clubs across Northern Ireland have been able to obtain £113,000 of rates rebates through the sports and recreation rate relief, allowing many of those clubs to continue ra…”
“There was much coverage on social media over the weekend of an incident in Staines in England, in which a police car rammed a young calf to bring it under control. It has restarted the conversation about animal cruelty. <BR /> <BR />I am dealing with a specific case in my constituency.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,640 lines we hold for Robin Swann, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 113.
“<BR /> <BR />Members will not need reminding of the deep significance of the Bill for victims and survivors of the relevant historical institutions and their families. As I said in the Second Stage debate, the swiftest possible action must be taken to secure the truth, to secure accountability and to secure justice — the justice that they deserve. The amendments will further support those goals. <BR /> <BR />I am grateful for the continued all-party support for the Bill, and the amendments tabled in the names of my party colleague Mr Alan Chambers and Ms Dillon. I wholeheartedly support those amendments.”
“I am grateful to Linda Dillon for her constructive recommendations on that matter, and the examples that she gave at Second Stage of circumstances where it would not be appropriate to exclude from the scope of the legislation information relating to a child's care or accommodation by a parent or relative. That is why I intend to support amendment Nos 2 and 4. <BR /> <BR />At Second Stage, Ms Dillon raised a further concern that a child must have been provided with care and accommodation by someone other than their mother for at least two consecutive months. That was in order for the mother and child to be deemed to have been separated for the purposes of clause 3(4)(b). I accept that imbalance. It is appropriate that the minimum two-month period should be removed. Therefore, I support amendment No 4, tabled in the Members' names.”
“However, having listened to Ms Bradshaw's concerns that it maybe does not go far enough, I look forward to seeing her amendments to clarify something that she does not think is already covered by this amendment or was already in clause 2 on other institutions. <BR /> <BR />If you take amendment Nos 2 and 4 together, they widen the application of the duty to preserve documents so that all relevant information — including information about accommodation or care — is:”
“The Bill will ensure that information is available for them to access, as part of the process of establishing their identity and what occurred at that stage of their lives. <BR /> <BR />Prompted by the Second Stage debate, amendment No 1 expands the definition of "relevant document" at clause 2. That includes communication between individuals and a relevant institution. That will mean that the duty to preserve documents will apply not only to letters between individuals such as parents, medical professionals or clergy and any relevant institutions but will be in addition to communication between those individuals and residents of the institutions that were already covered by clause 2. It is entirely sensible that such sources of potentially useful information should be protected in law. Therefore, I support that amendment.”
“I support amendment Nos 1 to 4, tabled by my party colleague Alan Chambers. He has set out their purpose in detail, so I will not rehearse that. <BR /> <BR />The amendments have come about, as others said, as a result of constructive cross-party input to this important Bill. That serves as further evidence of Members' joint commitment to do everything possible to ensure that the information that would be central and critical to a future inquiry into mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses in Northern Ireland is preserved. Also, as pointed out by Ms Bradshaw during the Second Stage debate, the information that the Bill intends to protect is a vital part of the life story of victims and survivors of those institutions and their relatives.”
“As I have said before during these debates, our system needs to be looked at and reformed so that we can act more quickly to change regulations and restrictions, as they do in other legislatures. <BR /> <BR />I reiterate that, while the legal restrictions have been removed, and I sincerely hope that there will be no return to them, the pandemic certainly has not ended. I implore us all to follow the guidance in place. Each of us should play our part in ensuring that we are not back here debating any further measures needed to tackle this disease in the future. I commend the order to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Chambers spoke to reiterate my initial point that I seek the extension of this order as an insurance policy, so that whoever is next in this position, if they need to — hopefully, they never will — will be able to enact or utilise this extension. <BR /> <BR />I hope that I have answered as many of the Members' queries and questions as possible. I thank Members for their participation in this informed debate, both today and throughout the entirety of the pandemic. I mean that sincerely. I also place on record my sincere thanks to the members of the Health Committee for their valuable scrutiny of legislation throughout this process. That process has never been easy but always challenging.”
“The Member already knew that his party colleague, Minister Lyons, had sent me a letter just before coming into the Chamber about how he has changed his opinion about the extension of these regulations. Having said nothing when I wrote to him on 12 October and nothing when I wrote to him on 20 December, he wrote me a letter expressing his concern just prior to coming into the Chamber. My officials will, of course, respond to that. <BR /> <BR />The powers that we are talking about already exist, and the power to extend them for six months at a time already exists. Those features were built into the initial legislation, so there is an ability to extend it for six months. That is what I ask the Assembly for today.”
“I think it was Mr Allister, away at the start, who gave us a history lecture about who Draco actually was. That is not an approach that I have ever taken. I concentrate, instead, on the collective public health response. <BR /> <BR />It is my view and that of my Department that, in the absence of a functioning Executive, even if these powers are extended, it is not clear how future regulations, if required, could be implemented, since any decision such as this would likely be seen as controversial and cross-cutting and, as such, would necessitate an Executive decision. Therefore, there are challenges already there. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew asked whether I had received any communication. Like many in this place, he never asks a question unless he knows the answer.”
“Some in the Chamber spoke about their contribution in combating COVID in the past tense, but they are still at it today. They are still supporting patients with COVID across the entire sector, in care homes, on the front line and in the vaccination programme. <BR /> <BR />With regard to a number of other points raised in Mr Frew's contribution, it was a collective response over the past two years that actually brought us to where we are today. I welcomed that response. I welcomed the engagement and the message that I had from the Member's party leader about how it was the Executive who collectively agreed the emergency procedures. That included the DUP Ministers. <BR /> <BR />There have been some questions asked about where we go from here and what will happen with regard to the draconian ability that some have mentioned.”
“At the end of his contribution, Mr Frew spoke about how I brought forward all the regulations and restrictions. There was a time when the junior Ministers led the debates about the restrictions that were brought in. Indeed, Minister Lyons, now the Economy Minister, was at one point standing in the Chamber, behind these Benches, trying to convince the rest of the Assembly to vote for the restrictions, while Mr Frew and others in his party seemed to be railing against them, although from a historical point of view rather than currently. <BR /> <BR />With regard to some of the comments, there have been many contributions on, and much acknowledgement paid to, our health workers and the work that they have done over the past two years. They are to be commended.”
“I am not under any illusion, but I also fear how many people would have been in our hospitals. How many people would not be walking the streets of Northern Ireland today because of some of the decisions that the Member may have taken, should he have been in this position? That is an assumption, however, and, again, it may be unfair, because nobody knows how any individual in such a post over the past two years, be that in Northern Ireland or across the jurisdictions, would have reacted. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew talked about the "Government's approach" and "what the Executive did". I remind him that his party has — had — the most Ministers in that Executive. Many, if not the majority, of the decisions that were taken were therefore made with the full support of his party's Ministers.”
“That is what the Chamber is about, but, when he has spoken, it has sometimes felt personal, because he mentioned "this Health Minister" or "that Health Minister" a number of times. It was always directed at me, but I am glad that he has changed the message today. It may not necessarily be me who is in this post again. He said that it could be someone from his party. Indeed, it could be him, depending on his party leader, of course.”
“Some Members are trying to react to where we are now by saying what we should have done two years ago and how we could have reacted then. We did not enter the pandemic with perfect hindsight about what could have been done. There will be work done on how those decisions were made and enacted. As Mrs Erskine said, it is about having the ability to mitigate the additional pressures, should that be of additional variance or the international implications. That theme came through in Mrs Cameron's contribution as well. <BR /> <BR />No matter what some may think in this place, I value Paul Frew's contribution to these debates, because it is right for me to be challenged.”
“Colin also asked whether the emergency powers have been allowed to lapse completely elsewhere. Not to my knowledge. <BR /> <BR />Ms Bradshaw spoke about the Alliance Party's approach to the regulations and restrictions in the past as being that of a liberal party. I have always noted the Alliance Party's contributions to the debates in the Chamber and in Committee as being a proportionate response to the entirety of our reaction to the virus over the past two years. <BR /> <BR />That leads me on to Mrs Erskine's contribution. She is right about needing a crystal ball to look ahead to the next six months. If we had a crystal ball, we would know whether the legislation is needed. We do not have that crystal ball, however.”
“The Deputy Chairperson usefully highlighted what is in place in other jurisdictions. Scotland, England and Wales, and also the Republic of Ireland, have reacted by having a proportionate response to the continuation of what may be necessary but will hopefully never have to be used. Unfortunately, we have had to seek the six-month extension of the order because of a difference in historical legislative provisions. As I said when talking about the Chair's contribution, we very much rely on the 1967 Act. <BR /> <BR />Colin McGrath asked what the alternative is to extending the powers today. The alternative is to let them fall in their entirety, which would leave us susceptible to having to bring in emergency regulations should they be necessary, but only should they be necessary for what can be done.”
“My Department has worked with Health Departments across the other jurisdictions to ensure that powers that have not been used and that there is no intention to use will lapse at this point; indeed, some of them have already lapsed. Ministers from Departments in other areas are, even today, bringing forward extensions under the Coronavirus Act 2020 because of how their Departments and arm's-length bodies are working.”
“Without the order, we could leave ourselves completely at risk from a variant that could be established anywhere across the world. It would be able to make its way into Northern Ireland, where we could see travel closed down across these islands, North/South and east-west, but, without the order in place, we would not be able to introduce regulations or restrictions on international travel. That would leave Northern Ireland not only susceptible itself, through international travel, to another variant of concern but able to be used as a back door to the United Kingdom and to the Republic of Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The Deputy Chair also acknowledged that a number of powers in the Coronavirus Act have not been used.”
“He spoke about how complacency is now the biggest challenge that we collectively face. I note the support of the entire Health Committee on the issue and on other regulations and restrictions that we have had to introduce over the past two years using the Act. It is about looking to the next step, and, as the Chair recognised, that will be the review of the entire Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. Legislation that was written before I was born definitely needs to be brought up to date to deal with modern-day medicine and viruses and how, as a society, we react to them. <BR /> <BR />The Deputy Chair, Pam Cameron, spoke on what the legislation is actually about. The first provision that she listed — one of the most, if not the most, significant — was section 25B on international travel.”
“You are welcome. It was important to record the fact that the DUP is unwhipped on the matter. It is worthwhile that the clarification comes from the Chief Whip of the party. <BR /> <BR />I welcome today's debate on the order and the way in which it has been held. The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Powers to Act for the Protection of Public Health) Order (Northern Ireland) 2022 seeks to extend the expiry date of section 48 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and of the provisions in schedule 18 by six months, from 24 March to 24 September. <BR /> <BR />I turn to some of the comments in Members' contributions. The Chair of the Health Committee rightly acknowledged, as he always does, the difficult and dark times that the virus has visited on the people of Northern Ireland, those working across our health service and those who live here.”
“Finally, I reiterate to Members that the extension of this order is merely an insurance policy. We do not want to have to avail ourselves of it, but it is there should the worst happen. None of us in the House wants to see any further restrictions in place, and I certainly hope that we have seen the last of any such measures. However, despite the appeal to some of grandstanding on the issue, I simply cannot risk being in a position where we cannot protect public health, which I firmly believe will be the case if the powers are not extended. I commend the order to the Assembly.”
“I suppose that is the crux of the debate. We had to seek legal advice to lift even the last set of regulations. As I said, even if those powers that the order would give were in place, it would almost certainly be impossible to introduce new restrictions in the absence of an Executive. Should the order be approved and an extension made to the expiry date for the powers, it is likely that any decision to implement restriction regulations would be controversial and cross-cutting and, as such, would necessitate an Executive decision, and that is a position that I would support.”
“<BR /> <BR />Devolved Administrations are also working with the UK Government on contingency measures that can be ramped up in the event of another variant of concern that warrants the implementation of travel restrictions. Some aspects of those contingencies will require new travel regulations, for which primary powers will be required. Further, as I said, even with those powers in place, it would almost certainly be impossible to introduce new restrictions in the absence of an Executive.”
“As we know, for reasons elsewhere, that Executive meeting never took place and there has not been a meeting since. <BR /> <BR />As I said in the Chamber just last week, while the legal restrictions may have come to an end, the pandemic certainly has not. Following the revocation of the remaining restriction regulations on face coverings, I still deem the extension of the powers to be imperative, and, as such, I re-tabled the motion for the draft order to be approved. Should the need arise, we must have sufficient powers to allow us to continue our fight against COVID-19, as we have done with great effect since March 2020.”
“If the extension order is made, the intention is to use the additional time that is provided by the extended expiry date to review and update the 1967 Act in order to bring it into line with the situation in other jurisdictions. However, that will require extensive work and will take some considerable time. Ultimately, it will be for a future Health Minister and Executive to make a decision on that. <BR /> <BR />The Executive had intended to review the remaining restriction regulations at their meeting of 10 February. Having initially tabled the motion to approve the order prior to that date, I decided to withdraw the motion ahead of that meeting to allow a full Executive discussion about the trajectory of the virus so as not to preclude any Executive decision on regulations.”
“I wrote to them on two occasions, 12 October 2021 and 20 December 2021, advising them of my intention to lay the draft order. Not a single objection or concern was raised by any ministerial colleague — not one. Therefore, I will say to those who will possibly stand up today and protest that I am not sure where their parties and their concerns or objections were only a number of weeks ago. <BR /> <BR />It is for the reasons that I explained that I propose to use the powers in section 90(2) of the Coronavirus Act 2020 to extend the operation of section 48 of that Act for six months by means of the order. That is to provide the minimum powers that are necessary to deal effectively with coronavirus comparable to the position in other UK jurisdictions.”
“I would prefer not to have any more restrictions put in place. However, the virus continues to pose a risk as it remains in circulation, and it is difficult to predict its trajectory or the possible emergence of new variants of concern. It is, therefore, imperative that we have the necessary powers, should they be required. <BR /> <BR />If Members vote against the order, I hope that they will at least attempt to explain why, in their opinion, such essential possible safeguards, which will, hopefully, never be utilised, are no longer required or should not even be held in reserve. On matters of such seriousness, I hope that Members will engage in more genuine debate, rather than just provide sweeping generalities. <BR /> <BR />Let us also remember that extending the order was also the collective view of all my Executive colleagues.”
“Unlike other UK jurisdictions, however, Northern Ireland will revert to a position of not having public health regulation-making powers specific to coronavirus unless and until primary legislation, including such provision, could be brought before the Assembly. In plain terms, if the draft order does not pass today, after 24 March, we will not be able to legislate to protect public health in the event of a worsening of the pandemic. Not only will the powers on domestic restrictions be removed but so will the powers relating to international travel. <BR /> <BR />In the past, I have been clear in saying that we are, thankfully, already in a position where we have revoked all restriction regulations. The full relaxation of the international regulations came into effect at 4.00 am on 18 March.”
“<BR /> <BR />While I had never envisaged having to make those regulations, they were crucial in our fight against COVID. During the pandemic, the severity of the situation changed rapidly, and the regulation-making powers enabled my Department to act quickly to introduce legislation that supported efforts to prevent or control the infection and the spread of infection, helping to save lives. <BR /> <BR />The Coronavirus Act 2020 expires two years after commencement unless Parliament decides to extend it. When it ceases to have effect, all secondary legislation made to date under the temporary modifications made to the Public Health Act by section 48 of the Coronavirus Act will also cease to have effect.”
“However, the 1967 Act does not provide regulation-making powers to respond to COVID-19 in the same way as our neighbouring jurisdictions in England and Wales can respond, nor as provided for by similar legislation in Scotland. The Coronavirus Act 2020 did. However, it allows the use of temporary powers to enable my Department to make regulations that are consistent with any provisions made in the rest of the United Kingdom under its existing equivalent powers. These temporary provisions were used extensively throughout the pandemic in the making and amending of general restrictions and international travel regulations. To date, around 70 sets of domestic restrictions and face covering regulations and approximately 64 sets of international travel regulations have been made.”
“<BR /> <BR />Despite the genuine experts who urge cautious optimism, despite all the global evidence that we could have asked for over the last two years and despite the vast majority of people recognising that it would be utter madness to blindly follow a narrow ideological path, we still have a small minority of people who are so blinded by their own opinion, genuinely held or not, that they cannot understand what the implications of rejecting the order would be. Today's debate is a useful opportunity, once again, to set the record straight on the exact rationale for and purpose of the order. <BR /> <BR />Our primary public health legislation is the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967, and it provided the base on which we made coronavirus restriction regulations to protect public health during the pandemic.”
“<BR /> <BR />I make it absolutely clear that I, as much as anyone else, want us to permanently cast off the shadow of COVID-19 and the prospect of any further restrictions. I have seen the real harm that both can do. I have looked into the faces of enough broken health workers. I have seen the immense societal and economic disruption that they can cause, and, probably at closer quarters than most, I have seen the damage that they can inflict on other key health and social care services.”
“Whilst that might not be a detail that suits the narrative being presented by some, it is a clear point of fact nonetheless. This is not the first time in recent weeks that the House has debated extensions to an element of the 2020 Act, yet I am aware of inaccurate claims emanating from some quarters as to the real purpose and rationale of the order. <BR /> <BR />People will, of course, occasionally come forward with entirely genuine questions or seek particular points of clarification. However, not for the first time, a very small number of people, including some in the House, who should really know better, are seeking deliberately to misinform and distort the truth of what we are doing today. Even after so long, it is clear that some still choose not to let facts get in the way of their own objectives.”
“The order, which was laid in draft on 11 January this year, seeks to extend section 48 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the provisions contained in schedule 18 to same for a period of six months from 24 March to 24 September. Section 48, along with schedule 18, inserts powers into the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 to make health protection regulations for the purpose of preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination relating to coronavirus in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Whilst the order provides powers to make regulations, it would remain a matter for the Executive to decide on the need to make further regulations.”
“The Member and I have had discussions about what is a mixed economy in relation to our social care and social provision, where we rely not only on third-sector providers in the voluntary and community sector but on the private sector. Part of the remit of the review of adult social care is to look at how we rebalance how much is supplied by trusts versus what is being provided by the private and voluntary and community sectors. I believe that the trusts and the Department should be doing more centrally, because that is what our National Health Service is about: providing a health service at all points. I know that that is one of the points on which the Member and I agree.”
“I thank the Member. She indicates a challenge that we have across all of the care sectors as regards the support of the staff in the sector by way of what they are being paid and the compensation that is there. Professor Ray Jones will also look at that as part of the review into children's social care services that I announced, because we cannot rely entirely on the third sector, the social sector, to carry out that function. It is also important that those services are inspected by the RQIA to make sure that they are serving at a standard that supports the people who are using the facilities and that the RQIA acts where it sees that action is needed. In this case, it has.”
“I am not in a position to answer that question at this time, but I can follow up with the Member directly or through the Health Committee.”
“The RQIA's intervention and inspection, and the quick action of the South Eastern Trust, proves that we are in a very different place from where we were when some of those inquiries initially took place.”
“That review will be fundamental to the examination of children's services. It will focus on quality, equity, resilience and sustainability to ensure that our services are capable of responding to the current and potential future demand level and complexity of need; are effectively meeting the needs of the children, young people and families with a range of vulnerabilities; sufficiently and supportively engaging them in the decisions that affect their lives; and are adequately supporting staff and carers in the exercise of their statutory and other duties in the course of their caring responsibilities. <BR /> <BR />As I have announced, even with regard to the legislation that we completed this morning, this is the start of a process, and a lot of work has to be done to ensure that the issues that Mr McGrath mentioned do not happen again.”
“I thank the Member for her point. She will be aware of the Children's Homes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 and the requirement from the Department of Health to publish minimum standards for children's homes as well. In those, standard 4 relates to safeguarding children and young people and the other work that needs to be done to make sure that there is support for each individual, that that is assessed based on individual need and that there is an individual care pathway as well. <BR /> <BR />The Member will also be aware that, on 21 January, I announced an independent review of children's social care services. That review commenced in February. It is being led by Professor Ray Jones and supported by an expert panel, and it is expected to take approximately 16 months.”
“I thank the Member. That is one of the main cruxes of the issue. In my answer to the initial question, I said that there was engagement about the care not only with the parents but the children themselves. I also indicated that there was engagement by the RQIA not just following the inspection and in the decisions taken but, as is required in an RQIA inspection, through its interaction with the children and young people about the support and services with which they were being provided and whether that met their needs. There was engagement by the RQIA throughout the entirety of the process.”
“The RQIA and the South Eastern Trust interacted on what needed to be done to address the RQIA's findings about those significant staffing deficits, including staff competency, in the care that was being provided. The RQIA also had concerns about the leadership and governance structures, which required the decision to be taken at speed. <BR /> <BR />The Member will be aware of the other processes that have been put in place by the RQIA in other trusts. At this point, the trust has not asked for additional resource to be able to do that. It mobilised its own staff as quickly as was needed to make sure that it was able to maintain safe staffing levels and that the care of the residents was maximised at that point.”
“As I said in my opening statement, the RQIA undertook an inspection in January this year. It then served a notice of intent in February. It has acted in a speedy way to undertake work with the South Eastern Trust, which acted immediately to put in place provisions. There was a proactive response from the RQIA and the South Eastern Trust. They mobilised quickly to make sure that additional support was provided to those children who needed it.”
“The trust developed a contingency plan to take ownership of the children's service, engaging families and the children to ensure transparency and provide assurance that decisive action was being taken. The children's service is now registered with the appropriate trust and additional trust staff have been redeployed to address deficits. <BR /> <BR />To be clear, the trust has now taken full leadership, management and oversight responsibilities in the children's service and will continue to work with the RQIA to ensure the delivery of safe and quality care. In the longer term, my officials are working with the Health and Social Care Board and all trusts to develop a framework to redesign services for children with disabilities and complex needs.”
“I am aware that the RQIA undertook an inspection of a children's services residential care home for children in January this year. The inspection findings are clearly very disturbing and found staffing deficits which, in RQIA's assessment, compromised the provision of quality care for children with complex needs. <BR /> <BR />The South Eastern Trust has fully engaged with Praxis Care and the RQIA to explore the challenges in children's services and provide the support that is necessary to ensure safe care. As an immediate and decisive response, the trust redeployed statutory staff to address critical vacancies in the care home in order to maintain service provision.”
“I thank the Member for her question. During a previous Question Time, I gave further clarification on the targets that a number of trusts have specifically identified for how they plan to step up those respite and day-care facilities. Some trusts are more ambitious than others. I had asked that all trusts publish on the Department's website their rebuilding plans to show the speed at which they will work. As the Member has indicated, I made it clear that my expectation of our trusts is that they get those facilities back up and running to full capacity as soon as it is safe and practicable for them to do so.”
“I am not aware of anything that is due to come to me between now and next Friday about launching a consultation on the ILF. If something is already in preparation, however, I will confirm that to the Member in writing.”
“I place great value on the independent living fund, but, again, given the current challenges with a recurrent budget, where I would like to do more, unfortunately, at this time, I am not able to confirm that I can.”
“I thank the Member for his question. Last Thursday, there was a very good engagement event, which was facilitated by the Health Committee, between the Disabled People's Parliament and the Committee on a number of issues. That was the first question that was asked. I am not sure whether the Member was watching that or is just intuitive. <BR /> <BR />The independent living fund is essential and beneficial. The Health Committee heard, as I have heard previously, about how the fund allows people with disabilities to live independently and support themselves independently — it is in the name — but also about the importance of the assurance that they would get support during the COVID pandemic, because they were employing services and individuals directly.”
“I will not make any commitment to the Member that I cannot promise, but I will write to him by the end of the week, if I can, specifically regarding the time frame of that report, because he has asked about it in the past.”