Paul O'Kane
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“It is clear that any ban on phones will have to involve young people. They will have to help to co-design it and they will have to be at the heart of how we implement it—we should not forget that in the debate. There are already myriad discussions about how we might do that.”
“That is why we have advocated for a national charter on behaviour and standards and national leadership on discipline in schools, to empower headteachers to set out consequences, look at the issue of community partners such as campus cops and restore the relationships that now do not exist in many local authorities.”
“I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and in doing so, I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the issue to the chamber, and I wish her well. Pam was one of the first MSPs I met when I was elected to this place; we were in the same little group on the first day.”
“I am sure that many of us who watched the first day of proceedings in 1999 never thought that we would sit in the chamber and help to form the next part of the story of the Scottish Parliament.”
“Her work with me and others across committees on drug deaths and drug harms was very important. I hope that we will all continue to focus on that in the next session of Parliament. She can be assured that her contribution in that space is very valued. I also pay tribute to you, Deputy Presiding Officer.”
“Given that it is the last day of the parliamentary session and that we are about to enter an election period, colleagues will expect some politics from me. It is clear that the Government has failed to grip these issues during this session.”
The complete record
Every one of 463 lines we hold for Paul O'Kane, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“The second is John Smith, who said: “The opportunity to serve … is all we ask”. That is all that we—those of us who are standing again—are asking, and I wish everyone well. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr O’Kane, for your kind words. 13:15”
“I am sure that many of us who watched the first day of proceedings in 1999 never thought that we would sit in the chamber and help to form the next part of the story of the Scottish Parliament. I appreciate that I am now saying nice things to indulge you, Deputy Presiding Officer, so that I get a wee bit more time, but I am about to conclude. I leave the chamber with two important points. The politics over the next wee while will be fierce and intense, so I will quote two Johns—neither of them are who members might think, before we go there. They are two of my political heroes. One is John Hume, who said that when people are “divided … the only solution is agreement.” We need to find those solutions in the next session of Parliament, in particular in education.”
“Her work with me and others across committees on drug deaths and drug harms was very important. I hope that we will all continue to focus on that in the next session of Parliament. She can be assured that her contribution in that space is very valued. I also pay tribute to you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is perhaps the last time that you will chair a debate in the chamber that I am involved in, and I wish you all the very best for what comes next. I reflected, when speaking to you yesterday, on the fact that your dear mother was the first person to sit in that chair. It has always stuck with me that it must be so important to you that, over our five years in Parliament, you have been able to do the same thing.”
“It is clear that any ban on phones will have to involve young people. They will have to help to co-design it and they will have to be at the heart of how we implement it—we should not forget that in the debate. There are already myriad discussions about how we might do that. I know that the cabinet secretary will say that she feels that she does not have the power. Some advocate for a new piece of legislation, but I would advocate for looking at the legislation that we already have. There needs to be a wider discussion about powers that have not been used, such as those in the Education (Scotland) Act 2016, and the duties that we place on chief education officers in local authorities to implement and enforce certain things. Given the day, I pay tribute to Audrey Nicoll, who has made her final speech of the parliamentary session.”
“That is why we have advocated for a national charter on behaviour and standards and national leadership on discipline in schools, to empower headteachers to set out consequences, look at the issue of community partners such as campus cops and restore the relationships that now do not exist in many local authorities. We have also advocated for improving workforce planning, so that support staff meet the needs of pupils, and for ensuring that schools have funding certainty, so that they can offer teachers and education staff permanent or long-term contracts, in order to address the scandal of qualified teachers being unable to work. It is clear to me that a range of solutions are required in the next session of Parliament to make an impact on the problems that exist in relation to violence and behaviour.”
“Obviously, there are multifaceted reasons for that, and we need to understand those, but that is not an excuse for ignoring the very clear problems that surround the use of digital technology and what young people are being exposed to in online spaces. That is why my party was one of the first to call for a nationwide ban on mobile phones in the classroom. It is clearly part of a toolbox and a package of solutions to deal with those issues and give young people better opportunities and a better start to their school life. Other actions need to sit alongside a ban, however; it would not, in isolation, be a silver bullet.”
“Given that it is the last day of the parliamentary session and that we are about to enter an election period, colleagues will expect some politics from me. It is clear that the Government has failed to grip these issues during this session. Indeed, this weekend, a response to a freedom of information request from local authorities across Scotland showed that the number of reported incidents of pupil-on-teacher violence has more than doubled over this parliamentary session. In my region, that means that in places such as Renfrewshire, things are spiralling somewhat out of control, with recorded incidents in primary schools increasing more than fivefold since 2022- 23.”
“I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and in doing so, I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the issue to the chamber, and I wish her well. Pam was one of the first MSPs I met when I was elected to this place; we were in the same little group on the first day. Her leadership of the cross-party group on India, of which I have been a deputy convener, has been very important in this Parliament, particularly to the wider Indian diaspora across our region and elsewhere. Since coming into the education brief, I have been fairly consistent in saying that tackling the wider issues surrounding today’s debate, such as violence and disruption in our schools, must come first and foremost, because that will provide the foundation for everything else that goes on in the classroom and in the wider school environment.”
“That vital service is now being offered to those who require it. Of course, there is more to be done to get other services back on to the main street, but I am glad that, out of a negative experience, the credit union movement can play a very strong role in the community of Barrhead and, I am sure, elsewhere around the country. I would be keen to hear what the minister has to say about that and about support for the credit union movement. Before he makes what will be his final speech in the chamber, I pay tribute to Richard Lochhead for all the work that he has done over my five years in Parliament to help to move these issues forward. I am very grateful. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I ask the minister, Richard Lochhead, to respond to the debate. 18:50”
“Christine Grahame: I have been banging on about credit unions in here for years, and I am pleased to hear that the member managed to get one on his main street. I have only another day to go, but I ask that he emails me about that, because it is something that I would like to see set up in Penicuik, failing our getting a mobile service. Credit unions are much underrated; I am a member of one myself. It is a great thing for people to save and then borrow responsibly. Paul O’Kane: I would be more than happy, in my last act of service to Christine Grahame, to ensure that those details are passed across to her, because she is completely right. What can also happen through a credit union is that people’s benefits, including social security and pensions, can be paid to them, in cash, on the day that they come in.”
“The community campaigners, the council, the MP and I then came together to think of other ways of getting some level of service into the community, and the credit union movement was very much at the forefront of those considerations. Barrhead—and, indeed, East Renfrewshire more generally—had been without a credit union for a number of years, since Pioneer Credit Union left the town, and we were able, in partnership with Pollok Credit Union, to bring a credit union presence to the main street for the first time in several years. Of course, what a credit union does is allow people in a community to save, and it then pools those savings to guarantee loans and investments for its members.”
“Christine Grahame made an interesting point about mobile services; there also seems to be a shying away—or a moving away— from such services, which I know have been beneficial in other parts of my region. Lloyds chose not to respond or meet us. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear that, when I took the 5,000-signature petition to the Mound, the man on the door took it and it just disappeared into the system. The community was then faced with a stark choice about what it did. Link, as we have heard from other colleagues, refused to bring a banking hub to the town, because, according to its criteria, the town was adequately served in terms of access by the post office and cash machines.”
“What happened then was similar to what we have heard from other colleagues: a community campaign was mounted to try to make the Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group consider their position and think again. Five thousand people signed the petition, and numerous entreaties were made by me, my council colleagues, the local independent councillor Danny Devlin and our member of Parliament, Blair McDougall. However, all of that fell on deaf ears as far as Lloyds Banking Group was concerned. That just speaks to the wider approach that Lloyds, and other banks, are taking in devaluing face-to-face services and not having them present in communities.”
“I intend to make just a short speech this evening on a particular closure in my region. However, I begin by thanking Clare Haughey for lodging the motion and securing the debate. I also want to thank all colleagues who are taking part in the debate, and who have expressed many similar issues and themes about the dearth of face-to-face banking services in their communities. Similar to what happened in the areas that Christine Grahame and Clare Haughey represent, Barrhead’s last remaining Bank of Scotland branch closed earlier last year. That had a significant impact, given that it was the last remaining bank in a town of that size. It also caused significant concern, particularly for older people in the community who required face-to-face banking.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would appreciate your advice on how a member can correct the record when they have made an omission. My colleague Sarah Boyack, in her very fine final speech in this chamber, omitted to say that, as minister, she was also responsible for the introduction of free bus passes for the over 60s— a policy that was brought in by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive at the time. I would be very sad if that were not put on record in the Official Report for the benefit of all members. [Applause.]”
“They recognise much of their part in the journey, as I am sure many of the campaigners in the gallery do. There are days in this place when it does not feel like we are planting trees for other people to sit under, but today is not one of those days. 15:19”
“When I became a dad in August, somebody said to me, “The way you feel right now about your wee boy is how you will always feel about them—they will always be your little boy or your little girl.” Daniel Johnson spoke to that experience powerfully today. It will always be our desire to protect and support them and to give them a future that perhaps will be better than what has gone before. That is what the bill is all about. It is about our children and ensuring that they can live safely at school and have all the support and protection that they need. I was talking about the bill with some colleagues I used to work with at Enable, Kayleigh Thorpe and Jan Savage. I reflected that sometimes in life you plant trees for other people to sit under.”
“I was always struck by the fact that Beth’s email address was “calumsmummy” at whatever the email provider was. I do not know whether that is still the case, but she used to laugh and say, “I had that email address because that’s how folk knew me. I was Calum’s mummy at the school gates, and I was Calum’s mummy when organising him seeing his friends and all those sorts of things. I stuck with that, actually, because that’s who I am.” Many people in the country now know Beth Morrison as Calum’s mummy, because that was behind her driving determination to pass the legislation. I think that all of us who are parents would recognise that.”
“There is a real sense of coming full circle at the end of a parliamentary session. For me, there is a personal element to that, given that my career at Enable Scotland ended on my election to Parliament, but that was also the point at which I began to do a lot of work with the people who have been involved with the bill. I want to pay particular tribute to Beth Morrison in that regard. We have heard her described as “Queen Bee” and the driving force behind the legislation, and she is an incredible woman and a tenacious campaigner. Along with Kate Sanger and other parents who have experienced horrendous situations, she has fought every step of the way to ensure that we pass the bill. Behind that, there is a real kindness and warmth to Beth. It radiates out of her—I always thought that when I worked with her at Enable.”
“I begin by paying a warm tribute to my friend Daniel Johnson for his work on the bill—for his tenacity, energy and dedication to it, and for what he has done to get to know all the different facets of it and to engage with them honestly and in good faith, which is what has brought us to this point today. I also join Miles Briggs in paying tribute to the other education spokespeople who I have had the pleasure of serving alongside in the latter stages of the Parliament, and to the cabinet secretary for her efforts on the bill and for the collegiate way in which she has sought to work on it. I know that in the coming weeks it will not seem as though we always have that collegiality, so it is important to put on the record today my thanks to her and to Miles Briggs, Willie Rennie, Maggie Chapman and others who have engaged on the bill.”
“There is a distinct air of the end of term all around us. There was a degree of chatter at the back of the chamber between the cabinet secretary and me and others, because people are becoming slightly demob happy, notwithstanding that an election is to come. During the debate, I have been reflecting on who I was at the start of the session as opposed to who I am now. At the start of the session, I used to write my speeches down carefully and closely. Today, I have not written anything down. That is because I know exactly what I want to say, because I know how passionate I feel about the issues and the individuals who have been involved in bringing the bill to its fruition.”
“We will need more legislation and we will need more energy and dedication, but, like others have done tonight, I recommit myself and my party to the Promise and to ensuring that we drive forward its delivery. 18:33”
“In reflecting on the conclusion of this parliamentary session and on the session to come, it is incumbent on us all, whether we return here or not, to reflect that the biggest danger in relation to the whole bill process and more widely is that a care-experienced person might feel that the Promise was made and people did what they could but then they moved on and the Promise remained undelivered. For too many people—this was at the heart of the care review—that has been the pattern and the story of their experience, and it is what they are seeking to fundamentally change. That should weigh on us all, whether or not we return to the Parliament in the next session. We have much more to do.”
“Despite a very busy ministerial diary, crucially, she spent time with me on many an evening in this Parliament, engaging with care-experienced people. That speaks to the effort that she has put in. I have been going round the doors in Bridge of Weir and Houston to solicit votes, and many folk have spoken to me about the respect that they have for the minister and the work that she has done locally. I am grateful that she is not standing as a candidate against me in the election, and I wish her all the very best for the future.”
“However, we should reflect on the reservations that have been outlined by the social work profession, COSLA and the Law Society of Scotland, and the reservations that have been raised throughout the process by care- experienced people and many others about what more we have to do in order to move forward and keep the Promise. I join colleagues tonight in paying a warm tribute to Natalie Don-Innes. She inherited the Promise and the bill process as a minister, and I very much believe her when she speaks about how much the bill means to her. I saw that through the interactions that we had on the cross-party group on care leavers, when she was absolutely willing to sit there, front up and answer questions from those young people.”
“The Parliament agreed with the Promise and, together, we hold it. However, we must reflect that it is the Government of the day that has the power to set the direction and drive the change, and that will be true whoever forms the next Scottish Government when it comes to the progress that we make. As we have heard from several members this evening, the bill does not deliver the Promise and we still have much to do. I want to recognise, as others have, what the bill does. I acknowledge the progress that, by passing this legislation, we will make in many areas— particularly advocacy, the right to return to care, UNCRC issues and kinship care—and I note the contributions that have been made by many colleagues in that regard.”
“For probably the final time in this parliamentary session, I declare an interest in that my husband is a children and families social work manager and a registered social worker. As I sum up on behalf of Scottish Labour, I put on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the bill process—in particular, my colleague Martin Whitfield, who was involved in something of a marathon last night as he sat on our front bench and pursued amendments, as did colleagues across the chamber, including the minister, with the support of the relevant officials. During the passage of this bill, I have said many times that it is an opportunity as well as, at points, a risk, and I think that we are all reflecting on that this evening. As we have heard, it was this Government that brought together the care review and made the Promise.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support high streets and town centres in the West Scotland region, in light of reported issues, including high vacancy rates. (S6O-05649)”
“I come back to the comments that I opened with about certainty. Our time in this place will come and go, and the debates that we have, the victories that we mark and the disappointments that we experience will fade. However, the decision that we make tonight will be lasting and its impact will be wide. We must look disabled people in the eye and assure them that we can give them safety, dignity and protection—the things that they need to live their lives. I do not believe that we can do that. If there are colleagues tonight who, even now, at this hour, are unsure about that or any other aspect of the bill, they must join me and many others across the chamber at decision time and they must vote no. 19:47”
“Of course, my opposition to the bill goes beyond just the amendments that were passed or not passed last week. I fundamentally believe that we do not debate the issue on a level playing field. We have heard a vast amount of testimony from disabled people about their fears of what would happen if the bill was passed. That is not imagined and it does not come from nowhere. It comes from the daily lived experience of disabled people and their families. In a country as rich, as democratic and as socially aware as ours, too many disabled people feel that they are not heard, not seen and not valued. They are our colleagues, our constituents, our neighbours and our friends. This is no longer a debate for the kitchen table, the pub or the radio. A monumental decision is before us, and we must hear their voices.”
“I cannot fathom why we would pass a bill that would not provide a sufficient safeguard and a right of conscience for organisations in this country that have provided care for hundreds of years. Those organisations and institutions are at the heart of our communities. Whether members have faith or not, they should recognise that those organisations and their staff have walked with, laughed and cried with, and held the hands and the hearts of people in our community in the darkest of moments. They cannot be allowed simply to be put into the annals of history. They have a place, they belong in our communities and they must be protected. My amendment that sought to protect them failed by only four votes, which was markedly different from the margin by which the general principles of the bill were agreed to at stage 1.”
“At stage 1, I set out my key concerns on coercion, and the deep concerns that disabled people have communicated to me in relation to the bill, not only during my time in Parliament but throughout my career working with people who have a learning disability and their families. At stage 2, I followed growing concerns about the right of conscientious objection for healthcare professionals and organisations. As colleagues will know, in my amendments at stage 3 last week I sought to enhance protection from coercion, mandate training on it and provide an opt-out for organisations, particularly those with a faith ethos. I will dwell briefly on the failure of the latter amendment.”
“Over these past days, weeks, months and years, we have debated what it is to die, what it is to have a good death, and how we support people in our society throughout their life and in its completion. I want to begin, as I did at stage 1, by acknowledging the variance of views and experiences that have been shared with me by constituents and many others across the country—shared with genuine concern, passion and honesty. I will vote against the bill this evening, but I want people to know that I will do so with a genuine respect for those with whom I have found that I cannot agree, including Liam McArthur, the member in charge of the bill.”
“This is undoubtedly the most consequential decision that we will make in this session of Parliament, just five days before its conclusion. Indeed, it is one of the most consequential decisions that this Parliament has ever made in its relatively short existence. Many MSPs in the chamber will have made their final speech in the debate knowingly; we have heard about some of that already. Some in the chamber will make their final speech unknowingly. Some, of course, will return to the chamber to make speeches in coming years. Nobody’s place in this Parliament and nothing that we do here is certain. As colleagues have already referred to, the only thing that is certain in life is death.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr O’Kane. I will make sure that that is recorded.”
“I do not disagree with his comments about the Republic of Ireland; that certainly highlights an approach. I will play with one constitutional point—the fact that, although there are some limitations on this Parliament’s powers, I do not consider that to be a hindrance to the opportunity to allow the population of Scotland to have their say on a really important issue.”
“Stuart McMillan referenced the Republic of Ireland. He would recognise that there is a constitutional provision in Ireland that says that, when there are to be amendments to the constitution, they are decided on by referendums. There is a variation of opinion in the state about whether that is the best way to decide elements of the constitution, which is obviously very different from the approach here. Crucially, a detailed citizens assembly process takes place before the development of a referendum there, which allows the question to be designed and the campaigning sides and all of that to be considered, for example. Does the member accept that we do not have that infrastructure here? Stuart McMillan: I thank Paul O’Kane for raising those points.”
“The point that Jeremy Balfour and other colleagues have made is that they have made arrangements in relation to their caring responsibilities that keep them more local. Coming to Edinburgh is different from those arrangements, and I ask Christine Grahame to reflect on that. Christine Grahame: I hear Mr O’Kane’s point. Obviously, I do not know about everybody’s domestic circumstances, but members may be able to consider whether they can work remotely, which was not available in previous sessions of the”
“Will the member take an intervention? Christine Grahame: I will just finish this point, Mr O’Kane. We have had lengthy debates on some amendments, some of which went over and over the same subjects, which made a mockery of the amendment timings that were decided by the Parliamentary Bureau. We all know that. Before I finish, I will take Mr O’Kane’s intervention. Paul O’Kane: I recognise that Friday is a working day, and I think that colleagues would all recognise that they work on Fridays. However, people were planning to do something different on Friday and had made arrangements based on that. Part of my day on Friday involved caring for my son. I will now not be able to do that, because it would preclude me from doing my job here. The arrangements that I have in my region would be different because I would be closer to home.”
“I have always been clear that it is not a case of either/or in relation to palliative care and assisted dying, as international evidence clearly shows. Therefore, I support those amendments.”
“Section 7(1)(b) sets out the information that a registered medical practitioner must provide to the person during an assessment. At stage 2, a requirement was added to inform the person that they may request a social work assessment, but it referred to a subsection that was not agreed to. Amendment 31 would remove the incorrect cross- reference. Amendment 30 is a technical amendment that seeks to maintain consistency in terminology when referring to social work professionals in the bill. Brian Whittle’s amendments 150 and 304 would mean that a terminally ill adult who has made a first declaration may request to be provided with a palliative care support plan, with minimum requirements to be set out in regulations.”
“That could be read more widely than just asking the adult themselves, and it could potentially require the assessing doctors to investigate more widely. That was not the intention of the provision and nor would it be appropriate. Amendment 26 would adjust that wording to make the intent clear. Amendments 79, 81 and 85 would then ensure that, where known, those reasons are recorded in the relevant schedules. Amendment 29 would make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that once the second declaration has been signed, it is up to the terminally ill person to decide whether to ask for the substance to be provided to them and when. Amendments 30 and 31 are technical amendments that are consequential to amendments that were made at stage 2.”
“I lodged amendment 157 because of all the issues that I have raised and the need for expert professionals to be part of the assessment process of individuals who might demonstrate certain vulnerabilities. Liam McArthur: I remind members of my declaration of interest relating to the support that I receive from various groups in relation to the bill. Unlike Mr O’Kane, I cannot offer members the reassurance that I will not detain them for a while, given the number of amendments in the group, but I will do my best. My amendment 26 reflects the fact that the drafting of section 7(1)(zc) is not quite right, as it requires the assessing doctors to “enquire about and discuss” an adult’s reasons for wishing to be provided with assistance to die.”
“Amendment 157 would instead make it a requirement for a registered medical practitioner carrying out an assessment “to make enquiries of at least one health professional, social care professional or social work professional who holds qualifications or has demonstrable experience relevant to the condition, care needs or circumstances of the person being assessed”. At a very basic level, my amendment seeks to strengthen the assessment process by replacing the discretionary power that is in the bill as amended with a mandatory requirement. That would ensure that assessments were being informed by appropriate multidisciplinary expertise. It would promote greater consistency in practice and reduce the risk that relevant safeguarding or welfare considerations might be overlooked.”
“I do not intend to detain members for long by speaking on the broader issues and themes that surround amendment 157, because many of them were raised during the proceedings yesterday evening when we discussed the important role that social work and multidisciplinary approaches should play in the process. The bill’s current wording states that a registered medical practitioner carrying out an assessment must “consider making enquiries of a health professional, social care professional or social work professional with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed”.”
“I pass no comment on those, except to say that, should we not agree to amendment 107, for instance, or should we accept some of the amendments that I will come to, we will potentially fall foul of the Supreme Court in this matter.”
“Cabinet secretary, can you understand, given that we are being asked to vote on a bill without legislative protection for health staff, how nervous a lot of staff and the representatives would be about what the situation will be if the bill should pass? 18:45 Neil Gray: Yes, of course I do. I share that concern, and I understand it completely. We are in a position where, should the Parliament’s will be to pass the proposed legislation, we will need to seek to provide the necessary protections. However, given the Government’s neutral position and our obligation to protect the statute book, I am also compelled to inform Parliament of any areas of legislative incompetence or legal deficiency and other technical issues. I recognise the challenges that there will be.”
“Those bills were non-contentious and very technical, and we were informed that it would take up to 18 months for them to go through the process, whereas this bill appears to have short-circuited the process. Neil Gray: If I understand Mr McMillan’s question correctly, he is asking how the section 30 order has been able to be resolved more quickly than other processes. That is down to the good- faith negotiations, to which Mr McArthur rightly referred, and our ability to get to an agreed position. I will give way next to Ms Haughey and then to Mr Balfour. Clare Haughey: I thank the cabinet secretary for letting me intervene, and I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which I did not put on record earlier.”
“Neil Gray: That is a fair question from Mr Hepburn. There may well be differences of opinion, but that would be subject to negotiation. I give the commitment that I gave earlier, which is that if I were the health secretary or the responsible minister at that time, I would seek to keep Parliament as informed as I could. Stuart McMillan: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Jeremy Balfour: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Clare Haughey: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Neil Gray: I give way to Mr McMillan first. Stuart McMillan: Can the cabinet secretary provide some information with regard to why the process for this bill is different from the process for previous bills that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has considered?”
“The Scottish Government discussed with the UK Government whether all the issues that were identified could have been addressed in the section 30 order. However, the UK Government took the view that, in order to respect the distinction between reserved and devolved matters, anything that could be dealt with by a section 104 order should be dealt with in that way, with changes to legislative competence—that is, the use of a section 30 order—being kept to a minimum. Jamie Hepburn: I will not make the same point again about the section 30 process. However, can the cabinet secretary set out, or has the UK Government set out, how any divergence of opinion between the Scottish Government, in seeking to implement the will of this Parliament, and the UK Government, in its interpretation of matters, would be resolved?”