To do the last part of your question first, we didn't experience a great deal of difficulty in persuading the political parties to agree with what we were planning to do. That wasn't an issue for us.
In relation to the Standing Orders change, we did anticipate there would be more changes that we would have to make. What we went through, for our Standing Orders, was a comprehensive review. We found there really were only about three or four different rules we would have to suspend or vary in order to allow Parliament to begin to meet virtually and to do things differently.
I think I mentioned the rule we had that parliamentary meetings must take place in the debating chamber, in our physical building in Edinburgh. We had to veto that rule to allow us to meet in a virtual space. As well, we don't have any rules about quorums, except for a very few minor legislative requirements, so there were no adjustments that had to be made there. In those regards, where there were requirements for quorums, the political parties were keen that we protected them. They didn't want to go below the numbers that were statutorily required for particular decision-making.
Probably the biggest issue we had was with the length of time that we would make these variations for, and that's only because we were working at high speed. We made these changes, and I think I can quote my saying that we put them through for the duration of the public response to the novel coronavirus COVID-19, but we very quickly realized that it wasn't going to be clear when that public response would come to an end. We went back again and we adjusted that in line with the emergency legislation and some of the sunset clauses that are in there. We have now restricted it to sometime during the summer, when we'll review again. We do give the Parliamentary Bureau and the Presiding Officer power to extend it rather than having to go back through the process of making the changes in Parliament again.