Scottish Parliament, 15 November 2023

278 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

Constitution, External Affairs and Culture

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time. If a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or enter the letters “RTS” in the chat function during the relevant question.

“Building a New Scotland” Papers (Feedback)

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it is assessing feedback to the “Building a New Scotland” series of papers. (S6O-02712)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister, Jamie Hepburn, is joining us remotely.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

First, I apologise to Marie McNair and other members for not being able to be in the chamber in person today.

We are assessing feedback through a variety of measures including round-table events with relevant stakeholders and ministers following paper launches, and other ministerial and official-level stakeholder engagement.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

A recent

“Building a New Scotland” paper sets out the Scottish Government’s proposals for a humane and principled migration policy after independence. The United Kingdom’s hostile environment policies came into effect under former Prime Minister David Cameron. This week, he is back in Cabinet, unelected and unaccountable. Does the minister agree that the sooner Scotland can introduce our own migration policy that treats migrants with respect, the better it will be?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Yes, I agree with that. I also welcome the fact that Parliament voted just yesterday in favour of that proposition. Despite the welcome withdrawal of Suella Braverman from Government, I cannot say that the return of David Cameron or the appointment of James Cleverly as her replacement fills me with much optimism that the UK Government is changing tack. I hope that it will reflect on today’s Supreme Court judgment in respect of its Rwanda policy, which has already cost the taxpayer some £140 million in payments to the Rwandan Government, and that it will adjust accordingly. However, I hold out little hope of that. Only with independence can we create a sensible and humane immigration system.

“Building a New Scotland” Papers (Cost)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the total cost of its “Building a New Scotland” series of papers, including the recently published “Migration to Scotland after independence” paper. (S6O-02713)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I reiterate my apology to Murdo Fraser for not being there to answer his question in person.

The Scottish Government is publishing the publication costs of all the papers in the “Building a New Scotland” series. The Parliament has been informed of costs for the first five papers in the series, and we will publish the cost information for the recent “Migration to Scotland after independence” paper shortly.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for his answer, although I did not hear a number in the response that he gave.

The constitution is, of course, a reserved matter. The Scottish Government is spending public money on these papers, but we know that people in Scotland do not want independence and that even people in the SNP do not think that it is likely to happen. We have a budget process coming up and we have huge demands on the Scottish Government budget—not least from people who have recently been flooded out of their homes and who are looking in vain for support from this Scottish Government. Would the money not be better spent on them than on those pointless papers?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

First, I welcome Mr Fraser’s on-going interest in the “Building a New Scotland” series. He complains about parliamentary time being given over to discuss these matters, but he is clearly warming to the prospect, given that he has asked me that particular question.

In respect of the costs of the work that we are undertaking, I will put the issue in context by noting that, in 2022-23, expenditure on the constitutional futures division and the BANS papers that we have published constituted 0.0035 per cent of the Scottish Government budget. When we compare that with the massive opportunities of independence, which we see when we look at countries all around us such as Ireland, Norway, Denmark and Finland—all of which are healthier, happier, fairer and wealthier countries—I think that that is a price worth paying.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have received requests for supplementaries from two members and will take both.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

The values of humanity and compassion to people who are fleeing persecution and conflict should be central to our approach to migration and asylum policy. Can the minister say any more about how the UK Government’s approach is typified by the Rwanda scheme, which today has been ruled illegal, and how it compares with the Scottish Government’s approach to asylum and refugee policy as set out in its recent paper

“Migration to Scotland after independence”?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The UK Government’s approach speaks for itself. It has overtly said that it wants a hostile approach to migration, which runs totally counter to what we require in Scotland. We need people to come to Scotland. In our paper, we have laid out a sensible and proportionate approach that involves encouraging people to come here for the economic opportunities and to support our economy, while also making sure that we have a humane process to support people who are fleeing from torture, war and other challenges in other parts of the world. We have got it right, and the UK Government has got it wrong.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Given the catastrophic effects that Westminster policies have had on Scotland’s economy—particularly Trussonomics, which Murdo Fraser demanded the Scottish National Party Government follow—does the minister agree that Scotland cannot actually afford not to talk about independence? More important, can the Scottish Government tell the Parliament what the cost of funding the Scotland Office is, and what it actually delivers for the people of Scotland?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

First, I agree with Mr Fairlie’s premise. The real question should be: can Scotland afford not to be independent? For example, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that Brexit will shrink the United Kingdom’s gross domestic product by some 4 per cent in the longer term. We do not want to be dragged down in that respect.

On the Scotland Office, I cannot provide the full figures, of course—only the UK Government can do that—but we know that, in 2022-23, the Scotland Office spent £1.1 million on communications staff alone. In the same year, it spent £47,370 on travel and subsistence costs for just four special advisers, which was £19,034 more than in the two years before. That is hardly good value for the taxpayer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question number 3 has been withdrawn.

Scottish Census 2022

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the Scottish census 2022. (S6O-02715)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

National Records of Scotland published the first results from Scotland’s census 2022 on 14 September. The publication represented a historic moment for Scotland, with the largest population ever recorded by Scotland’s census of 5.4 million, an increase of 2.7 per cent since the previous census in 2011. Following September’s publication, NRS will publish further results from Scotland’s census from spring 2024 onwards.

In the summer of 2024, a series of topic data reports will provide new and unique insights into the characteristics of Scotland’s people, including information on ethnicity, religion, the labour market, education and housing. For the first time, data on armed forces veterans, sexual orientation and trans status or history will be included.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The Scottish National Party completely botched Scotland’s census, and it did so because of its ideological obsession with diverging from the rest of the United Kingdom. It will therefore be more difficult to plan for the delivery of public services. National Records of Scotland says that lessons will be learned from this fiasco. Surely there is one main lesson to learn, which is that, in 2031, the census should be UK-wide. Will it be? I am looking for a yes or a no.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

NRS is keen to reflect on lessons learned, including how the results that are now being published are received by users, and it is committed to setting those out upon the conclusion of the 2022 census programme in an evaluation report that will be laid before Parliament by the end of 2024.

I am sure that Mr Findlay will be delighted to learn that the Office for Statistics Regulation has awarded Scotland’s census output with national statistics designation, based on quality, good practice and comprehensiveness of the statistics. Achieving such a designation means that the expert independent UK regulator has confidence in the statistics that NRS has produced and that Scotland’s census forms an integral part of the statistical system in the United Kingdom.

Creative Scotland (Funding)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what plans it has to restore a reported £6.6 million reduction in funding to Creative Scotland for 2024-25. (S6O-02716)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government values the importance of the arts, especially their

significant contribution to wellbeing and to the cultural, social and economic life in communities across Scotland.

It is for those reasons, among many, that during the past five years the Scottish Government has provided more than £33 million to Creative Scotland to compensate for a shortfall in National Lottery funding. As a result of rising costs and pressure on budgets across Government, the Scottish Government is unable to make up the £6.6 million shortfall in National Lottery funding during this financial year.

Subject to the usual parliamentary processes, we will provide that shortfall funding of £6.6 million to Creative Scotland in 2024-25. We hope to provide a further update on funding following publication of the draft budget in December.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. We all want extra funding for culture, because it will allow great events—such as the Borders book festival, which takes place in my constituency—to continue to thrive in the future.

However, the delivery of the funding has been a fiasco. First, the Scottish National Party cut the Creative Scotland budget, then it announced—with a great fanfare—that it would reverse that cut, then it restored the cut, then it restored the funding again. The SNP U-turned on a U-turn on a U-turn. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the culture sector needs more certainty than that confusing hokey cokey?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

It is important to appreciate the context of the end-year finance. Unfortunately, Rachael Findlay is not on the culture committee, where she would have heard—

[

Interruption.

]

Sorry, I meant to say Rachael Hamilton—forgive me. I do not know whether that would be a promotion or a demotion. I will leave others to decide.

It is important to understand that we had pressures because of the UCI cycling world championships—the cost of which amounted to £8 million—£6.6 million for Creative Scotland, and a very significant list of cultural projects right across Scotland that were under threat unless we were able to manage the end-year finances differently. We have done that. The Government took the UCI cycling world championship costs out of the portfolio, and it has ensured that Creative Scotland uses its reserves so that there is no detriment to regularly funded organisations.

If I have an opportunity later during questions, I will be able to confirm the spending that we have been able to put forward—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, you are over your time. We need to move on.

Gaza (Humanitarian Aid)

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

6. To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its humanitarian aid funding, whether it will provide an update on any further action it can take to help provide support to those affected by the conflict in Gaza. (S6O-02717)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

We unequivocally condemn the abhorrent terrorist attacks committed by Hamas. However, in exercising its right to defend itself, Israel must abide by international humanitarian law. The civilian populations in Gaza and the West Bank cannot and must not be held responsible for crimes committed by a terrorist organisation.

Last week, we announced a further £250,000 contribution towards the United Nations flash appeal in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, in addition to the £500,000 that we committed last month.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Scotland will always be a welcoming place and a compassionate sanctuary for refugees. Given the harrowing and inhumane conditions that we are witnessing in Gaza, and the immediate and growing need for support—particularly when the UK Government’s stance on an immediate ceasefire is conflicting—can the cabinet secretary provide an update on what further steps the Scottish Government can take to welcome Palestinian refugees in Scotland?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The First Minister has been clear that we stand ready to welcome refugees in Scotland, should that be required, and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice wrote to the former Home Secretary to request a meeting to discuss plans. I reiterated those calls in my recent appearances before the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. We wait to hear from the new Home Secretary what approach he plans to take.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

It is estimated that 50,000 pregnant women are trapped in Gaza, with around 5,000 due to give birth during the next month, and without clean water, medicine and humanitarian aid those women and their babies will be at risk, which is devastating. What discussions have been had with relevant aid organisations regarding the specific challenges that pregnant women face, and in future discussions regarding humanitarian aid, will the cabinet secretary raise the specific needs of that key, vulnerable group whenever he has the opportunity?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I agree entirely with the question. Our main interlocutors in relation to aid in Gaza are the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which is the UN agency that deals with the Palestinian authorities.

Of course, we believe that a ceasefire is absolutely key to being able to ensure that the humanitarian support manages to get in and to deal with the very specific challenges that the member has raised, as well as many others. Unfortunately, the civilian population is suffering grievously in Gaza. Everything needs to be done to help and support them, while acknowledging, as I have already, our condemnation—no doubt across the chamber—and our opposition to the terrorist atrocity that Hamas visited on innocent Israeli people in October.

Arts and Culture (Funding)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its commitment to increase funding for the arts and culture sector. (S6O-02718)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am pleased to report that the Scottish Government has released £6.68 million of funding to the culture sector for the rest of this financial year. That funding will benefit individuals and communities across Scotland through our support to programmes such as the culture collective and it demonstrates our continued investment in screen and festivals. In spite of the incredibly challenging picture, we have prioritised our investment in culture to support the sector, acknowledging its vital contribution to our economy, and to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to experience the transformative and empowering potential of culture.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that several important projects require capital funding in the Glasgow area, many of which are strategically important to the economic development of the city. Glasgow Life has called for a funding model that outlines how the Scottish Government will support cultural provision in Scotland while addressing discrepancies between cities and regions. Can the cabinet secretary assure my constituents that the possibility of direct central Government funding to Glasgow’s national assets will be taken into serious consideration with his department’s increased budget?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

First, I will deal with this year. Of the £6.68 million funding release to the culture sector that I have just announced, £1.5 million will go to the culture collective programme, £2 million to Screen Scotland, £250,000 to the platforms for creative excellence programme, £130,000 to the national performing arts companies touring fund and £2.8 million to fund public sector pay policy uplifts. On spending decisions for next year, the issues that Kaukab Stewart has raised will no doubt be considered. If members on all sides of the chamber have particular views on how the Scottish Government should invest the increase that we have committed to making for culture, I would encourage them to share them, as I would be very grateful to hear them.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

More than a month ago, the Scottish Government promised Creative Scotland that it would not be left out of pocket by the reinstatement of a 10 per cent cut in core funding. Creative Scotland is desperately looking for assurances, and rightly so, as thousands of jobs are on the line. Will the cabinet secretary guarantee that his funding commitment to Creative Scotland will be met?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am happy to repeat what I have said, but I am sure that the member will appreciate that, on the announcement that I have just made on the provision of resources to the culture collective programme, £2 million to Screen Scotland and £250,000 to the platforms for creative excellence programme, those are all via Creative Scotland. Not only are we doing that, but we have given a commitment that the £6.6 million that Creative Scotland is using from its reserves now will be reimbursed next year. I am happy to repeat that.

Creative Industries (Highlands and Islands) (Support)

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what support it will provide to the creative industries in the Highlands and Islands region. (S6O-02719)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The creative industries make an important contribution societally, culturally and economically to Scotland and we are proud to support a range of creative organisations in the Highlands and Islands. For example, through our culture collective programme, which I have just mentioned, we are supporting the creative islands network, which provides opportunities for creative practitioners in the region. Via our regular funding to Creative Scotland, we support organisations including ATLAS Arts on Skye, and the Highland Print Studio in Inverness.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the First Minister pledged £100 million in extra funding for Creative Scotland over the next five years. Summer festivals in my region, such as Belladrum Tartan Heart festival, HebCelt, Tunes by the Dunes, Under Canvas by Eden Court, and many others, bring millions of pounds to the area. However, the costs that are associated with running those events are rising. Can the cabinet secretary provide a timetable as to when that money will become available? Will some of the funding support smaller or new events that cannot make multiyear funding applications to Creative Scotland?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Rhoda Grant makes an extremely important point. Different cultural organisations and events are funded in different ways—some are funded through Creative Scotland, whereas others are funded directly—so we must ensure that we reach the entire cultural and arts landscape in Scotland.

Rhoda Grant makes a very good point, and, as I said earlier, I encourage her and other members who have funding concerns relating to particular regional, local or sectoral areas to ensure that those concerns are sent to me.

We are going through the standard budget procedure, and we are in a positive situation in relation to culture and the arts, because a commitment from the Scottish Government has been secured—yes, I am aware of it, because I made the suggestion. I am keen to ensure that the funding delivers the changes that I am sure we all want to see so that the culture and arts sector can thrive the length and breadth of Scotland, including in the Highlands and Islands.

Justice and Home Affairs

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next portfolio is justice and home affairs. Again, any member who wishes to request to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak button or enter the letters RTS in the chat function during the relevant question.

Whole-life Orders

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has any plans to introduce whole-life orders, in light of the United Kingdom Government’s announcement that it will expand their use in England and Wales. (S6O-02720)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The punishment part of a life sentence is the period that must be served in custody, and High Court judges set that part when imposing a life sentence. Under long-standing law dating back to 2001, judges already have the power to set a punishment part that exceeds the remainder of a prisoner’s natural life, which can result in a whole-life sentence. Independent courts can decide when to use their powers, and the Scottish Government supports the courts having those powers.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

In recent years,

Scotland has seen its share of horrific murders, including the appalling case of Jill Barclay, who was killed in absolutely horrific circumstances. Had that murder been committed down south, it is likely that, under the UK Government’s new plans, the perpetrator would have received a whole-life order, so they would never walk free. However, Scotland’s judges do not have the power that the UK Government plans to introduce. My question is simple: will the cabinet secretary give judges the power to lock up criminals for good, with no chance of parole, in sadistic and depraved murder cases?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As I hoped I had explained to Annie Wells in my original answer, our judges have the power to, in effect, impose a whole-life order on any person who is convicted of murder—our law allows that to happen. For example, Angus Sinclair received a 37-year punishment part when he was convicted of the World’s End murders when he was 69 years old. It is our judges who make such decisions, which is important, and our law enables them to have the fullest range of decision-making powers.

It is also important to acknowledge that the homicide rate in Scotland has reduced, but I appreciate that one life lost to murder is one too many—that is for sure.

Police Station Closures (Impact on Response Times)

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of police station closures on police response times. (S6O-02721)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Police Scotland’s approach to responding to incidents is clearly working, with recorded crime being at one of the lowest levels since 1974. When assessing how to respond to an incident, Police Scotland always assesses a reported crime under its threat, harm, risk, investigation, vulnerability and engagement—THRIVE—model. That places the needs of the individual at the centre of the police’s decisions while ensuring that effective prioritisation is in place.

Police Scotland’s estate strategy is working to deliver modern and fit-for-purpose police buildings that are co-located with partners and that meet the needs of 21st-century operational policing.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Police Scotland has warned that it could be forced to shed 2,000 jobs and close 30 police stations thanks to the Scottish National Party’s funding cuts. MSPs on the Criminal Justice Committee were warned that those cuts would impact incident response times. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, if more police stations were to close, response times would inevitably get worse?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

No, I do not accept that. I hope that the member does not mind my saying that the correlation that she suggests between static police stations and police response times is simplistic. However, I acknowledge that the location of police stations is important, particularly in some rural areas.

As the member knows, there are a number of ways to report a crime, and it does not always necessitate turning up in person to a police station. In fact, how people report crimes has changed greatly over the decades. On response times, Police Scotland will continue to prioritise emergency incidents and has updated, and will continue to update, its call-handling system.

Police numbers were reported last week in our quarterly statistical update, and they remain stable—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, cabinet secretary. We need to move on to supplementary questions. Three members have requested to ask questions, and I intend to take all three.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Can the cabinet secretary advise what resources would be taken from front-line police services if the chief constable had decided not to proceed with the closure of police stations that he has deemed surplus to optimum operational requirements?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

First, I should say that the chief constable is a she—I am sure that Mr Gibson will not mind my pointing that out to him.

On the substance of his question, through the modernisation of its estate and the disposing of buildings that are no longer fit for purpose, Police Scotland has secured receipts of around £31 million, which has been reinvested into the police estate and other police initiatives.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Can the cabinet secretary outline which 30 police stations Police Scotland is considering for closure? Local authorities, which already have to deal with reduced hours and far fewer police in communities than in previous decades, still do not know the full list of planned closures. Is that something that the cabinet secretary is able to share with us today?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

No, it is not, because it is not a matter for me. That would be entirely inappropriate. It is a matter for the chief constable, and it is one in which I am assured that local commanders are engaged directly with local communities, bearing in mind that, as a result of the reform legislation, local authorities have an active role in approving local priorities for policing.

I am quite sure that the member is aware of Police Scotland’s public estate strategy, which was published in 2019. I am also sure that she is aware that the Scottish Police Authority has a role in scrutinising decisions that are made by Police Scotland and that it meets in public.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Can the cabinet secretary outline some of the success that co-location with partners has had in delivering better outcomes for individuals, communities and Police Scotland itself?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I can, indeed. I have often noted in the chamber that a great example of co-location is found in Livingston, in my constituency, where seven partners, including Police Scotland, are located in the West Lothian civic centre. I understand that people can be attached to long-standing buildings, but public services and the nature of policing have changed very much over the past several decades and, indeed, in this century, with a greater focus on partnership working, which co-location and collaboration support.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 3 was not lodged.

Domestic Abuse (Domestic Homicide Review Model)

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it is giving to its wider approach to tackling domestic abuse, including its work to develop Scotland’s first national multi-agency domestic homicide review model. (S6O-02723)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Tackling incidents of domestic abuse has been, and continues to be, a priority for the Scottish Government. That is a fundamental aspect of our equally safe strategy, which is currently being revised in consultation with partners and front-line organisations.

The Scottish Government-led task force for the development of a multi-agency domestic homicide review model has recently concluded a programme of targeted engagement to seek the views of those with lived experience of domestic abuse, those who have been bereaved due to abuse, and those who work in the sector on a range of aspects of the model. A report will be published next month.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

My party has welcomed the introduction of a new pilot scheme to support victims of domestic abuse to escape from abusive situations. Given that nearly a quarter of homelessness presentations among women in Scotland were due to abuse, when will the scheme commence in South Lanarkshire and North Lanarkshire, and how can the fund really make a difference to gender-based inequality?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

On 17 October, the Government announced a £500,000 pilot fund to support women and children who are leaving an abusive relationship. The fund will be delivered by Women’s Aid groups in five local authority areas, and it will enable women to receive up to £1,000.

Ms Mackay has articulated the financial barriers that can prevent someone from leaving an abusive relationship. The pilot fund is expected to run until 31 March next year, and it should provide support for between 450 and 900 women.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Can the cabinet secretary expand on the aims of the domestic homicide review task force and provide an update on its continuing work?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The aim of the work is to ensure that the murders of women and children have a visibility. Although there has been a reduction in the homicide statistics, which are now at a historical low, that is no cause for celebration. We have seen a reduction in violence resulting in the deaths of men, and young men in particular. However, we know that, in 2022-23, 13 women lost their lives due to homicide, and six of those 13 women were killed by a partner or an ex-partner.

The core purpose of that very important work is that we learn from each tragedy and learn how to do more to improve the safety of women and girls. At the end of the day, that is what those who are left behind want us to do.

Someone said that, in learning the lessons of past tragedies,

“we remember the dead but we also fight for the living”.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary said, in 2022-23, nearly half of all female victims of homicide were killed by a partner or an ex-partner. The Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research says that those cases are often not dealt with appropriately. Has the cabinet secretary looked at the research? Does she agree with what it says?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am aware of that research. For the sake of those who are left behind and those who have lost their lives, it is important that we routinely and diligently look at each and every tragedy to see what should be learned. I think that we are in agreement that that is the very valuable core purpose of the work that is being undertaken. I will endeavour to keep members informed every step of the way.

Police Scotland (Discussions)

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Police Scotland regarding its north-east pilot not to investigate crimes if that is deemed a proportionate response by the service. (S6O-02724)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Let me be clear: Police Scotland will continue to investigate all reports of crime across all parts of Scotland. In the north-east, when cases are assessed as having no risk or threat and it is clear that there are no proportionate lines of inquiry, callers will be informed that their report has been filed and has received a crime reference number. However, should new information emerge, officers will investigate appropriately. That is how Police Scotland has operated since its establishment.

Police Scotland’s operational response is, of course, a matter for the chief constable. However, I was updated on that matter by Deputy Chief Constable Designate Taylor on 14 September.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As the pilot will likely inform the Government’s view of local policing going forward, to slopey-shoulder it as an operational matter does our officers and the victims of crime a disservice. Given anecdotal evidence of victims feeling abandoned, criminals feeling that there is a free-for-all and general public disquiet, is the Scottish Government minded to see the pilot go nationwide? In any event, what measurements and outcomes will determine whether it has been a success?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Let me be clear. Despite how the pilot, which is a matter for Police Scotland, has been narrated, all crime that is reported will be investigated under the pilot, as has always been the case. That was the assurance that I received directly from Police Scotland.

Police Scotland ensures that threat, harm, risk, investigation, vulnerability and engagement are all assessed as part of its THRIVE model. If it is clear that there are no leads and there is no risk in terms of threat, harm and vulnerability, the measures outlined in my original answer will be undertaken. The only difference between what currently happens and what is being trialled in the pilot is a quicker decision in relation to a proportionate line of inquiry.

To answer Mr Kerr’s question more directly, I assure him that the Government’s focus will remain on keeping our communities safe from harm and ensuring that our police officers throughout this country have the appropriate support—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, cabinet secretary.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

—to make appropriate operational decisions.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Audrey Nicoll to ask a supplementary question.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Although I appreciate that decisions such as on the pilot project in the north-east are for the chief constable, how does the Scottish Government continue to support Police Scotland to ensure that local priorities are met and relationships with local communities, which the cabinet secretary alluded to a short time ago, are maintained?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, please focus on the pilot.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Communities will remain at the heart of policing. The Scottish Government has highlighted the importance of community relationships in the updated strategic police priorities that were published earlier this year. The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 ensures that councils have to approve policing plans and the key priorities for their areas. Of course, they work alongside Police Scotland’s local commanders.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Consumer Complaints (Legal Services Regulation Reform)

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the plans for legal services regulation reform will meet the original objectives of the Roberton review regarding consumer complaints. (S6O-02726)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill is designed to deliver the objectives of the Roberton review to provide a modern regulatory framework that will promote competition and innovation alongside the public and consumer interest in an efficient independent legal sector. The bill seeks to balance and deliver the key priorities of all stakeholders by improving the transparency and accountability of legal services regulation and the legal complaints system and increasing the transparency and accountability of legal regulation. The bill embeds consumer principles into the regulatory framework and introduces a more flexible and responsive approach to complaints while expanding independent oversight of complaint handling.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I thank the minister for that response, but it is not just the Roberton review that concluded that the optimum regulatory model must be independent of regulatory bodies. The Competition and Markets Authority, Consumer Scotland and leading lawyers such as Brian Inkster and others also hold that view and have made that clear in evidence.

There is a clear and fundamental conflict of interest in having consumer complaints processed by bodies that exist to protect the interests of their profession. The better regulation principles would suggest that the model that is being proposed, although with some revisions, simply cannot square off that conflict of interest. The proposed new processes still have the same complexities and are extraordinarily difficult to navigate as a consumer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I need a question, please, Ms Thomson.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Will the minister look again at how we best service consumer complaints about lawyers in line with the better regulation recommendations—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Ms Thomson. I think that t

he minister has probably got the gist.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Law Society of Scotland will be required to exercise regulatory functions, including complaint handling, independently of its other functions. It will be required to delegate regulatory functions to an independent regulatory committee comprised of a minimum of 50 per cent lay members and a lay chair.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will retain oversight of complaint handling and continue to have a role in monitoring trends in legal complaints. In addition, the commission will have a role in setting minimum standards as to how legal practitioners and legal regulators handle complaints, thereby providing independent oversight.

I have been watching the evidence sessions of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee very closely, and I am happy to discuss the matter further with the member.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

One

of my constituents recently faced difficulties with the complex appeals process of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. That is why I welcome the review’s recommendation that a simple process of appeals be developed. Why, then, is the Scottish Government removing the ability to appeal decisions altogether and turning its back on complainers?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

We are at stage 1 of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, and I will listen to the committee’s views.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

McClure Solicitors, which was founded in Greenock in 1853 and has tens of thousands of clients across Britain, specialising in wills and trusts, went into liquidation recently. The Law Society of Scotland is monitoring it. Another firm, Jones Whyte, took on the files, but it is reportedly charging the victims of McClure’s collapse £300 plus VAT. Is the Scottish Government reading about the case and learning any lessons? Will the cabinet secretary assure me that she is having discussions with the legal profession to ensure that ordinary Scots are protected from such situations?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

As minister,

I cannot comment on specific on-going legal situations, but I encourage anybody who has a complaint to go to the Law Society of Scotland to make an official complaint. We are learning lessons. At stage 2 of the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill at the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee yesterday, I highlighted to the committee an amendment that would help to ensure that a situation like that of McClure does not happen again. In addition, legislation for the regulation of legal services is moving forward to prevent that from happening again.

Prostitution

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its commitment to develop a model for Scotland to challenge men’s demand for prostitution. (S6O-02727)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Government continues to develop a framework that effectively tackles and challenges men’s demand for prostitution, and to support those with experience of it. The framework will be published in the new year and our focus will be to implement it with support from a new stakeholder group.

The principles for the framework were published last year, and they will embed equality, human rights and safety at the heart of the new framework. The principles have also been adopted across Scottish Government to inform relevant policy and practice, in turn supporting Scotland’s collective approach to tackling commercial sexual exploitation.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Later this month, we will note 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. The Scottish Government has accepted that prostitution is violence against women. Will the minister advise when the Scottish Government will introduce legislation to criminalise men who exploit women in this way?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Prostitution cannot be considered in isolation, and there are many factors that must be considered in that work, of which criminal law is only one. It should be remembered that the law already prohibits many activities associated with prostitution, including trading in prostitution of others, the running of a brothel, procuring for the purposes of prostitution, as well as publicly soliciting or loitering for the purpose of purchasing sex. That is why we are focusing on the development and delivery of the framework to enable women to sustainably exit from prostitution, which will inform any future legislative considerations.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio question time on justice and home affairs. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow those who wish to change position to do so.

Scottish Ministerial Code (First Minister and Deputy First Minister)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-011247, in the name of Douglas Ross, on an independent investigation into the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Truth is at the heart of the debate that we are having today, as are the efforts to get crucial answers for bereaved families who are looking to the Covid inquiries for informed responses, having considered all the information.

All of us here have a collective responsibility to stand up for the integrity of our Parliament. If the value of what is said in this chamber is put into question or—worse—found to be untrue, that diminishes our exchanges and makes our national debate poorer. What is said here does—and must—matter. Although we will and should always debate their content, the validity of our speeches and statements should be beyond question. We owe it to our constituents, who expect their representatives to conduct themselves with honesty. If the public cannot trust parliamentarians, that reflects badly not only on one individual party, but on us all.

That is why the question before us should be above the usual partisan considerations. This is not a battle of ideas or a debate on how we best govern our country; it is a simple consideration of the facts and the evidence—of what was said, and whether there was a deliberate attempt to mislead.

The ministerial code that was signed off by Humza Yousaf is clear. It states:

“It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament”.

On penalties, it says:

“Ministers who knowingly mislead the Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation”.

What should happen next if the ministerial code has been breached is not in question—it is already there in print. The motion that the Scottish Conservatives have lodged does not even make a final judgment on whether the chamber was misled by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, although I will certainly put forward the case for that later in my speech. All it calls for is an independent investigation into whether there has been a rule breach and why.

There should not be a single member in the chamber who cannot support the motion. I confirm that we will accept the Labour amendment, but of course we will have to reject the amendment proposed by the Scottish National Party. I think that people watching this meeting will find it incredible that the party of Government will not even allow an independent assessment of what the First Minister and Deputy First Minister told the Parliament. If the Government believes that there has been no breach of the code, why would it not allow an investigation to go ahead to confirm its side of events? I suspect that that is because it already knows what the findings would be, and they would not be favourable to Humza Yousaf or Shona Robison.

If the Government is unwilling to allow that investigation, I will set out the facts and allow members and the public to draw their own conclusions.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Does Douglas Ross agree that one of the Nolan principles is accountability, according to which public office holders should

“submit themselves to the scrutiny that is necessary to ensure this”?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I absolutely agree with the member, who chairs the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in Parliament. Let us not forget that previous SNP Government ministers, including previous SNP First Ministers, have referred themselves to the independent adviser. I have to question why the current First Minister and Deputy First Minister are unwilling to do so.

In November last year, the United Kingdom Covid inquiry wrote to the SNP Government to ask:

“To what extent was there informal or private communication about significant decision-making? For example, were there WhatsApp groups (or other forms of group chats) which key decision-makers used”?

Then, in February this year, it asked for

“any communications relating to key decisions, including internal and external emails, text messages or WhatsApp messages (on Scottish Government and private or personal devices)”.

I will give way to any SNP member who can argue that that does not constitute a request for the messages—I will give way to any of them—but I see none. No SNP member is able to stand up in this Parliament and defend their Government’s argument that it had not been asked for the messages. That is because it was not a request for a summary or a minute of the decisions that were made but a request for the actual messages. The silence from the SNP members suggests that they know it.

Let us be clear: that request was made not only once in February, but again in March, July, August, September and October. Again, we are in a debate, so I will give way to any SNP representative who, having heard about all those requests, can claim that there was no requirement for the Government to hand over messages. I say that not just to SNP back benchers—I will give way to the Deputy First Minister if she would like to defend her case that that was not a request for messages. Again, I see nothing—not a single member is willing to do so.

We know that on each of those occasions, bar the last one, the messages were withheld. Jamie Dawson KC, the counsel to the inquiry, said this three weeks ago:

“The Scottish Government has provided the inquiry with no WhatsApp or other informal messaging material, either in its own possession or in the possession of”

individuals.

We have a situation where nine months ago, the Scottish Government was asked for WhatsApp messages to be provided to the inquiry, but they were handed over only last week. On 31 October, though, the Deputy First Minister said:

“In June this year, the inquiry came back to ask for groups of WhatsApp messages—the titles of those groups and who the members of the groups were—and then in September the inquiry asked for the individual messages”,

refusing to mention the fact that the inquiry had made similar requests in February, March, July and August. Shona Robison also went further. In response to my questions in the chamber on 31 October, she said:

“it is not correct to say that it has been a year since that request was made; it has been just over a month.”—[

Official Report

, 31 October 2023; c 66.]

That is not the truth. The evidence that was supplied by the Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Government-initiated question on 8 November contradicts that. Let us not forget that that evidence was supplied only by the SNP Government, because it was forced to do so by the UK Covid inquiry. The Scottish Government was all too happy to spin a different tale on timings until the inquiry called it out.

The First Minister was even more definitive in his framing of the requests. On 2 November, he said

“It is crucial to say that, when the UK Government inquiry asked us in June for details of the various WhatsApp groups concerning Covid 19, it did not request the messages themselves. The messages were asked for in September, just a matter of weeks ago.”—[

Official Report

, 2 November 2023; c 17.]

Again, that is not true—that is a false statement from the First Minister to this Parliament. Details of the WhatsApp groups were asked for a year ago—not five months ago, as Humza Yousaf claimed—and it was for nine months, not a matter of weeks, that the SNP Government left request after request for those messages outstanding. When I raised that with the First Minister last week, he said that the Government had interpreted the requests “too narrowly”. Too narrowly? It did not consider the requests at all. It ignored them time after time.

Two weeks ago, not a single WhatsApp message had been transferred from the Scottish Government to the Covid inquiry. The Scottish Parliament has been told contradictory stories about key messages that the Scottish National Party Government should have provided to the UK Covid inquiry and when that crucial information was requested.

Humza Yousaf and Shona Robison should be ashamed of their blatant attempt to deceive grieving families who lost loved ones during the Covid pandemic. They chose spin and secrecy over transparency and truth. How can we draw any other conclusion than that they have not been honest, have misled Parliament and have broken the ministerial code?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Would Douglas Ross agree that, because what is at stake here is the context of key decisions that were made in Government at a time of crisis, the failure to understand that context will mean that we cannot learn the lessons that we so badly need to learn for future crises?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Douglas Ross, I can give you the time back.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I absolutely agree with Daniel Johnson, and I will say this, repeatedly: it is not up to the Scottish Government and SNP ministers to say what is relevant or not for the Covid inquiry. We need to get full answers and full transparency, so they have to hand over absolutely everything.

Let us be clear: the most senior SNP members are still dodging scrutiny by refusing to launch an independent investigation, as per their amendment today. On 26 October, the First Minister promised me in the chamber that the Government would “fully investigate” why those messages had not been transferred, and that the Solicitor General had been tasked to lead that investigation. However, that is the last that Parliament has heard of it.

In the interests of transparency and openness, will the Deputy First Minister update us today on the status of that investigation and on the one launched by the permanent secretary? If not, I expect that many will assume that that is because it would again reinforce that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have not told the truth; that the request for meetings dates from February rather than from September, as they claim; and that, as a result, both Humza Yousaf and Shona Robison have deliberately misled this Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Ross, I think that you are well aware of standing orders in relation to accusations that members have deliberately misled this Parliament. I give a warning that we should be steering clear of that, and I say that not just in relation to you but to the chamber as a whole, through the context of this debate.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I will be careful.

However, I believe that this was deliberate, because those statements were not a simple slip of the tongue. They were the product of a concerted effort to confuse and muddle the timeline to make it seem as though the SNP Government was not dragging its heels in getting evidence to the inquiry.

As I have shown, the facts are clear. There can be no doubt that the ministerial code was broken and that the information given by Humza Yousaf and Shona Robison on the timing and scope of requests from the UK Covid inquiry was false.

However, there is a due process that can be followed, and I urge Parliament to vote for our motion to launch an independent investigation. If the Government does not believe that there has been a breach of the code, why would it not want that to be investigated? The UK Covid inquiry exists to give bereaved families the answers that they deserve on the motivations for the decisions taken during the pandemic. They should be given all of the information that they need to find those answers—they should not have to call out the two most senior SNP members to do so.

If members in this Parliament do not stand up for honesty in this chamber, this Government will always feel able to keep us and our constituents in the dark. It is past time that members of all parties stood up for the truth in the Parliament in which they serve.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should refer themselves to the independent adviser on the Scottish Ministerial Code for a potential breach of paragraph 1.3(c) of that code, which requires ministers to give “accurate and truthful information to the Parliament”, on account of their statements misleading the Parliament on 31 October 2023 and 2 November 2023, relating to the date of requests for information from the UK COVID-19 Inquiry.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I hope to set out today why I reject not only the motion but its premise. I start by repeating the First Minister’s acknowledgement last week that, in hindsight, we recognise that the Scottish Government interpreted the earlier requests for messages from the UK inquiry in a way that was too narrow. As the First Minister did last week, I offer my unreserved apology to families who have been bereaved by Covid for any distress that our actions, as a result of that interpretation, have caused them.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I keep hearing the Government use the excuse that it interpreted the requirements of the UK Covid inquiry too narrowly. I do not understand that. Many of us served in the Parliament at the time of the Covid emergency. We all knew that the inquiry was coming, and the Government consistently insisted that it would fall over itself to provide messages and evidence to the inquiry, yet this is the interpretation that we have.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Let me go into some of the detail on that in response to Alex Cole-Hamilton. In my statement of 31 October, and in answers to questions, I acknowledged that there had been initial requests for messages from the UK inquiry. The Scottish Government’s interpretation of requests from the inquiry at the time was that they related in the main to decision making.

As we have already set out, the Scottish Government did not, and does not, routinely make decisions via messaging services such as WhatsApp. Subsequently, and in line with the inquiry’s request, we have provided a far wider scope of almost 28,000 messages to the inquiry, to go along with the thousands of documents that had already been shared. We are committed to full co-operation with the Scottish and UK inquiries, and the reason for that is simple. As others have said, learning lessons from the pandemic is vital to prepare for the future.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I struggle to understand why the Government misinterpreted the request and interpreted it so narrowly. The point of an inquiry is surely to understand why decisions were made, so the context of decisions is critical. Therefore, those messages were of course relevant to the inquiry, so why did the Government make that decision? Why did it interpret the request too narrowly?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The focus was on decision making and providing the record of decision making. The subsequent request from the inquiry was for the broader range of context that Daniel Johnson refers to. That is what I set out in my statement with regard to the various stages, including the request for information on the WhatsApp groups and the messages in those groups. That is why the timeline that was put in through the Government-initiated question was important to set all that out in detail.

I will not stand here and say that lessons do not need to be learned from all the handling of these matters, from the response to the initial inquiries to any other issues, because the last thing that I or the Scottish Government want is to upset any of the bereaved families. That is absolutely not the intention, and I would regret that being the case.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Can Shona Robison confirm when she, as a current member of the Government and a member of the previous Government, was made aware of the request in February for the full messages? When was she personally made aware of that request?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

When I was making the preparations for the statement, the advice to me was very clear that the Scottish Government’s interpretation of those early requests was for information on decision making, and my statement was made on that basis. What the First Minister and I have said since then is an acknowledgement that, looking back at those requests, we can see that the inquiry has a point, which is why the GIQ put the information of the full timeline—all the information that was asked for—into the public domain.

I turn to the legal advice, because the Labour amendment to the motion makes reference to the legal advice that was provided to the Scottish Government during the pandemic. The Scottish ministerial code explicitly states that Scottish ministers

“may acknowledge publicly that they have received legal advice on a particular topic, but must not divulge either who provided the advice or its contents (whether it is from the Law Officers or from anyone else).”

That is a long-standing convention of respecting the legal professional privilege of legal advice provided to the Government, which is a privilege that I understand that Governments elsewhere in these islands also follow. The code also sets out that

“Where, in exceptional circumstances, Ministers come to the view that the balance of public interest lies in disclosing either the source or the contents of legal advice on a particular matter, the Law Officers must then be consulted and their prior consent obtained before any disclosure takes place. Such consent will only be granted where there are compelling reasons for disclosure in the particular circumstances.”

It is the view of ministers that disclosure to the inquiries fits with a commitment towards transparency. As a result, Scottish Government officials have sought an agreement with the inquiries, giving them full access to unredacted material that is legally privileged. We will seek to ensure that the inquiries are able to disclose that material if they consider it necessary to do so, subject to any overriding contrary public interest. Our overall commitment will be to full transparency. [

Interruption

.]

The First Minister has set out to members—

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Briefly.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

How can the Government be fully transparent if WhatsApp messages were manually deleted by key players during the Covid-19 inquiry?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you the time back, Deputy First Minister.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I dealt in my statement, at length, with the record management policy of the Government, which is that decision making, whether on WhatsApp or anything else, should be transcribed to the official record. That is set out very clearly in the record management policy and remains the same.

I was talking about the legal advice, and I want to conclude the point. As I said earlier, it is the view of ministers that disclosure to the inquiries fits with a commitment towards transparency. I hope that that will be welcomed.

The First Minister has already set out to members that a decision by Scottish Government officials to seek redactions would only be in exceptional circumstances where they had a legal responsibility to do so. I stress that they would also be required to advise the inquiries of their reasons for doing so.

I confirm to members that we are close to an agreement with the Scottish inquiry and that we are in on-going discussions with the UK inquiry.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member give way on that point?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I do not have time. I am sorry; I need to make progress.

Further to my previous statement, and in line with a request from the UK inquiry, I provided the Parliament—as I said earlier—with an extensive timeline of the requests from the inquiry through a Government-initiated question answer last week. The GIQ answer provides a full timeline of the requests to the Scottish Government and how we have complied with the requests.

The Scottish Government has worked, and will continue to work, to provide the UK Covid inquiry with the material that it requests. In total, more than 19,000 documents have been provided to the UK inquiry.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I do not have time.

In relation to messages that have been collated by the Scottish Government, we sought and received from the UK inquiry a section 21 notice to ensure that we could process lawfully personal information that is contained in the messages. With that legal basis in place, we have transferred to the inquiry more than 14,000 group messages and a further 14,000 messages that were sent between individuals. That takes the total number of messages that have been shared with the inquiry to almost 28,000. I should clarify that I have not seen the messages that have been transferred to the inquiry, but I am advised that they include messages from current and former ministers and civil servants.

There will, of course, be material and messages that will have been provided by individual witnesses who have received rule 9 requests. However, to be clear, ministers do not have access to the responses of individuals. Those are, rightly, matters between those individuals and the inquiry.

With your indulgence, Deputy Presiding Officer, I have a few comments to make on record retention.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you a bit more time, Deputy First Minister.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Thank you.

I want to highlight the information that I provided in my 31 October statement to the chamber regarding the handling and retention of records, including, but not limited to, informal communications by the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government’s duty to create and retain records has remained consistent throughout the period that the inquiries are looking at, and we have complied with that duty. The Scottish Government actively submits to records management review processes with the keeper of the records to ensure that our approach is compliant with the law.

A detailed record and evidence of key decisions that were taken during the pandemic have been maintained by the Scottish Government. Our policies fully comply with our legislative obligations under the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011 and other legal obligations, which is why we have had such a volume of material to share with the inquiry.

The Scottish Government’s records management policy makes plain that there must be transcription and storing of salient information from informal communications, such as evidence of decision making, to the centralised record system. The records management policy continues to apply to all records. The guidance has always been clear that, regardless of the platform or of new and emerging technologies, information that is relevant to the corporate record must be saved. Those practices for good records management are ones that we will continue to promote at every level within Government. They are kept under review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose.

Since the introduction of those policies, the Government has been asked to ensure the retention of any and all material that might have relevance to the work of the inquiries. The permanent secretary and the First Minister have been clear within the Scottish Government that those requests must be adhered to.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the Deputy First Minister take a brief intervention on that point?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The Deputy First Minister is just concluding.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am sure that the Minister for Parliamentary Business will be able to address Ms Baillie’s point in his closing speech.

I underline our commitment to do all that we can to ensure that the important work of both inquiries can proceed at pace. That is in all our interests, and we owe nothing less not only to the people who lost their lives or their loved ones in the pandemic but to all those who have been affected, including many public sector workers who pulled together during that difficult time and whose work made it possible for our society to return to the normality that we all enjoy.

I move amendment S6M-11247.2, to leave out from “refer themselves” to end and insert:

“continue to ensure that the Scottish Government responds fully to requests for information from the UK COVID-19 Inquiry and from the Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry; recognises that information has been provided to the Parliament in the contributions from the Deputy First Minister and First Minister on 31 October 2023 and 2 November 2023, and through written answers; notes that the Scottish Government has taken action to transfer messages to the UK COVID-19 Inquiry in compliance with its requests, and further notes that the Scottish Government has offered an apology to families that have lost loves ones to, or been impacted by, COVID-19 for any distress that has been caused.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind anyone who has not yet pressed their request-to-speak button but intends to speak in the debate to do so as soon as possible.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

It is important that we start by acknowledging why the issue matters so much. It is not just because it speaks to an SNP Government that has lost control, and nor is it just because the story is another example of the secrecy and cover-up that have tainted the SNP’s approach to many of the scandals that are rocking the Government, from ferries to public safety and the state of our NHS. It is both of those things but, most important, it is about the SNP Government being held accountable for its decisions and conduct during the most tragic event in living memory.

During the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic in Scotland, thousands of our fellow citizens died. Young people’s education was disrupted at levels that we had never seen before and with consequences that we still do not fully understand.

Untested and Covid-positive patients were sent into care homes with devastating consequences. People were shut away from seeing friends and family. People fell sick and were left to die alone. Their families mourned alone. That is why every ministerial decision and the conversation that informed it weigh so heavily not just on the politicians who made it but on the homes of every single family across Scotland. That is why the issue matters.

Across Scotland, people deserve the truth about how those life and death decisions were made. That is about not only learning the lessons for the future but delivering clarity and, I hope, some closure for many people who are living with heartache across our country. The least that Scots could have expected was that their Government would make getting the truth as easy as possible. However, that has clearly not been the case and it is not the strategy that the SNP Government has adopted.

Despite claims from Humza Yousaf as far back as May that the Scottish Government should be, in his words, “absolutely open and transparent”, we have seen attempts to withhold vital evidence from the inquiry, all while changing the excuse every time the story fell apart. In June, I asked directly:

“Will the First Minister confirm that all ministers and officials, past and present, have complied with the do not destroy instruction? Will he give a guarantee that all requested emails, texts and WhatsApp messages will be handed over in full to the inquiry?”

He gave a direct and simple answer. He said:

“Yes, they will.”

There was no equivocation, there were no caveats and there was no grey area. He went on to say:

“to ensure that there is simply no doubt whatsoever, any material that is asked for—WhatsApp messages, emails, Signal messages, Telegram messages or whatever—will absolutely be handed over to the Covid inquiries and handed over to them in full.”—[

Official Report

, 29 June 2023; c 15.]

Those were his words. His response was either hubris, naivety, incompetence or all three. Regardless, it is clear that it must be referred for an investigation into misleading the Parliament.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

From what Anas Sarwar has explained, the matter is serious. Does he agree that it would be more relevant for the First Minister to be in the chamber to listen to the arguments that are being made?

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Yes. In ideal circumstances, I think that the First Minister should be here. I can only hope that he listens to this debate or at least reads the transcript of it. I know from the past two weeks that he certainly had not read the transcript of the Covid inquiry,

but perhaps he will take the time to read the transcript of this debate.

In June, the First Minister told the Parliament that the Government had

“a long-standing policy on retention ... including email and social media messages.”—[

Official Report

, 29 June 2023; c 16.]

Then it transpired that Nicola Sturgeon and Jason Leitch had deleted the WhatsApp messages. The First Minister changed his story and told the media that the Government had

“a social media messaging policy which actually required us to routinely delete WhatsApp messages.”

The Deputy First Minister told Parliament that 14,000 WhatsApp messages would be handed over to the inquiry, and then suddenly the First Minister, having told the inquiry that he did not have WhatsApp messages, miraculously found an old phone with his messages from the time and said that he would hand them over to the inquiry. What I do not understand is whether he misled the inquiry and is now clarifying or whether he broke the guidance that he said the Government had, which required the deletion of WhatsApp messages. Was he breaking his own policy? There is an utter loss of control and utter confusion.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Will the member give way?

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I will give way. I hope that we get some clarity from the Deputy First Minister.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I have been very clear in my statement and in what I have said today. The requirement around messages, whether they are in WhatsApp or anything else, is to transcribe any decision making into the corporate record. Surely Anas Sarwar understands that no organisation can keep every single message about every single thing. Doing so would not comply with the law. The requirement is for messages that contain important, salient information to be transcribed to the corporate record, but they should not be retained forever, because that would be a breach of the legal obligations of the organisation.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you the time back for the intervention, Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

That is an even more confusing answer. What the Deputy First Minister is saying is that the First Minister has breached the Government’s guidance. He is saying that he has kept all his messages and will hand them over, but somehow the guidance is that messages have to be deleted. It is complete and utter chaos.

To put the matter in context, I note that the Government supplied 14,000 messages, but Matt Hancock alone—one person, as opposed to 70 officials and ministers—handed over 100,000 messages to the Covid inquiry. That compares with 14,000 messages—

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Will the member give way on that point?

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I am aware of the time, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I will take the intervention if I will get the time back.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you the time back.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Just to be clear again, today, I have updated Parliament that there are 28,000 messages that have been transferred to the inquiry, but, in addition to that, there will be the individual responses to the inquiry. I have not seen them, but, no doubt, they will contain WhatsApp messages and other elements of material as well. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Let

us listen to members when they are speaking.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I am sure that the Deputy First Minister’s brain fog will have sounded like clarity to her, but it does not sound like clarity to anyone who is watching.

What remains unclear is when the First Minister told the inquiry that he did not have messages. Was it before or after having committed, in June, to supplying all the messages in full? Perhaps time will tell on that.

However, that is not all. Three weeks ago, counsel to the UK inquiry stated that it had asked the Scottish Government for copies of informal messages such as WhatsApps in February. On 31 October, the Deputy First Minister told Parliament that the UK inquiry first asked for messages in September, and the First Minister repeated that claim on 2 November. He said:

“The messages were asked for in September, just a matter of weeks ago.”—[

Official Report

, 2 November 2023; c 17.]

Both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister directly contradicted the counsel to the inquiry’s statement on 26 October. It was only after being forced by the UK inquiry that the Deputy First Minister sought to correct the record.

If that was the extent of the falsehoods, it would still be an open and shut case, in my view, in terms of that investigation on misleading Parliament. However, the reality is that it goes further. The true scale of the cover-up that many fear is taking place is still unclear, because this SNP Government has repeatedly refused to answer even some of the most basic questions. The inquiry has made it clear that there is no issue of confidentiality with some of the basic questions and answers. That is just another false excuse from this Government.

The First Minister has still failed to tell Parliament how many of the 70 ministers and officials have failed to comply with the “Do not destroy” notice and how many have deleted messages. There is still no answer on that. Why did the Scottish Government hand over redacted legal advice to the inquiry when it provided legal advice in full to other judicial inquiries in the past? Still no answer. We have now had a clarification that unredacted legal advice will be supplied, but the question remains: why did the UK Covid inquiry have to fight with the Government to get legal advice that it is entitled to? Why did the Government have to be shamed in the Parliament before it did what it has done for every single judicial inquiry in the past?

It has also been reported that SNP ministers and special advisers use SNP and private e-mail accounts to communicate. I ask again: how many e-mails from SNP accounts have been handed to the inquiry? If it is none, why is that?

The counsel to the UK inquiry has said that, if the information that the Government has now provided is insufficient, the inquiry will want to know why—but so, too, will this Parliament. The First Minister has lost control of his Government and, in my view, he requires to be referred for an investigation into misleading the Parliament and trying to cover that up. We were promised full transparency and co-operation with the inquiry, but the Government has failed. As much as the Government tries to hide and hope that it all just goes away, for the sake of the families, it must and will be held to account.

I move amendment S6M-11247.1, to insert at end:

“; considers that there should be binding sanctions for ministers who breach the Scottish Ministerial Code, and calls on the Scottish Government to provide a date by which the requested legal advice will be made available, unredacted, to the UK COVID-19 Inquiry, and to set out to the Scottish Parliament how many emails from personal and party email addresses have been shared with the UK COVID-19 Inquiry as part of its response to the Inquiry’s request for evidence.”

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am grateful to the Conservative Party for making time for this important debate.

Transparency matters, in the boardrooms of the private sector and in the corridors of the Scottish Government. William Douglas reminds us that

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

He is not wrong. Without it, rot sets in—but there is very little sunlight in the Scottish Government right now. Thousands of grieving families are looking to the inquiries for answers. The UK Government WhatsApp messages that have been released so far show minute by minute what was really going on behind the scenes in London, and how decisions were made. The messages show that the discussions behind an order were often as important as the order itself.

The fact that the UK Covid inquiry had to instruct Scottish ministers to return to Parliament and set the record straight speaks to their having, at best, a casual attitude towards the work of the inquiry and, at worst, their attempting to undermine it.

Whichever analysis is correct, the Scottish Government has been deliberately slow-walking its co-operation with Baroness Hallett and her commission. The inquiry’s requests were in black and white and could not have been clearer. The Government said that it had interpreted the requests too narrowly. As I said in my intervention on the Deputy First Minister, that defence suggests a minimal and grudging approach to co-operation, instead of an approach that is as open as possible.

It was only when the pressure from the inquiry and the media became too great that the Scottish Government was finally embarrassed into playing ball. I really hope that that does not delay the evidence and findings of the inquiry or, worse still, act as a barrier to the answers to which the families are entitled.

I am grateful to Anas Sarwar for the Labour amendment, which gives us an opportunity to debate the functionality and application of the ministerial code. Should it just be for Humza Yousaf and his ministers to refer themselves to the independent adviser, or should there be provisions, as with the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, whereby any third party that presents a threshold of sufficient evidence can trigger an investigation?

We will hear a lot from members of the Government parties today about the volume of messages that have finally been passed on by the Government to the inquiry, but drowning the inquiry in 28,000 messages, unredacted though they might be, will not make up for what is not there. It has been reported that the messages that the Scottish Government has handed over are mainly from group chats that feature three or more ministers and civil servants, and that they do not include one-to-one exchanges between members of the Government. Reports also suggest that the former First Minister and senior Government officials were routinely excising their message feeds.

We can argue about what the SNP was asked for and when, but for me, that is the nub of the matter. Secrecy, selective memory and a failure to record or retain the records of the most important meetings are nothing new to the SNP or, in particular, the former First Minister.

Looking back, we see that those were unprecedented times when we all laid party politics aside. More trust existed then between opposing front benches than ever before or since. Nicola Sturgeon said that her Government would make mistakes, and we all accepted that, in the knowledge and understanding that we were in uncharted waters.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I am very grateful to the member for giving way. Does he agree that some of the evidence that we have heard from the UK Covid inquiry about UK Government decisions has revealed that the culture and the way in which the organisation made decisions were as important as the substance of the decisions? Do we not have the same interest in having that same information about the Scottish Government?

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am grateful for Daniel Johnson’s intervention, which cuts to the heart of the issue. The background chatter behind the decisions that were taken and the culture that they reveal are as important as the decisions themselves.

We all agreed that the Government would make mistakes, but if those decisions were backed by science they would stand up to scrutiny by the inquiry that we all knew was certain to follow the pandemic. If Nicola Sturgeon has deleted key messages that informed her response—messages that might show how she weighed science against politics—in consideration of those decisions, she, too, undermines the work of the inquiry.

A particular tragedy of Scotland's pandemic story lies in the decision that was taken in April 2020 to move untested and Covid-positive patients from our hospitals to our nation’s care homes. However, we will forever be denied a comprehensive understanding of the discussion that led to that, because we will never have all the messages.

There has long been a belief that the former First Minister would deliberately breach the trust of collective four-nations decision making in order to dash out announcements before anyone else to look as if she was leading the field. There is also a belief that she took decisions based solely on a desire to be different from Boris Johnson. She will never be able to dismiss those suggestions fully, because we will never have all the messages.

Lives and livelihoods hinged on those decisions, yet the people at the heart of them—Nicola Sturgeon and her advisers—were erasing the discussions that underpinned such decisions. The grieving families and those who have been failed may be forever denied the full story behind the calls that she made. What about the gall of that, and the bare-faced mendacity of stating repeatedly in the chamber—from the floor on which we stand—that Nicola Sturgeon and her advisers would open themselves up to the full scrutiny of an inquiry that we all knew was sure to follow the pandemic, and then, it seems, to go home at night and systematically delete the very evidence that those messages could offer? That reality could yet prove to be one of the biggest scandals in the history of the Parliament.

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant”,

but the governing party is afraid of the light, it is afraid of the truth that is concealed and it is afraid of the judgment that would surely follow and be rendered by the people of Scotland, should those truths ever come to light.

I fully expect that the SNP and the Greens will protect their leaders today, but if the debate has achieved nothing else, it should at least exert pressure on the Government to offer greater co-operation to the UK Covid inquiry and, by extension, to offer answers and a degree of closure to the grieving families who are at the heart of this.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. I call Meghan Gallagher, to be followed by John Mason.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Why is the Government not telling the truth? That is the big question that remains unanswered in the SNP’s secret Scotland.

For weeks, Douglas Ross has forensically questioned the First Minister about what information key players in the Covid-19 pandemic handed over to the UK inquiry, but the answers that have been given by Humza Yousaf and Shona Robison just do not add up.

On 31 October, it was announced that the Scottish Government was initially approached for WhatsApp messages by the UK inquiry in September. On 2 November, the Deputy First Minister said that it had been approached in February. The Government could be forgiven if it was a few days out, but eight months is not a simple mistake. Was the Government mendacious? If that was an honest mistake, why did it fail to correct the record? Those questions are why the Scottish Conservatives have brought the motion to the chamber today.

Something stinks about the SNP’s attitude to handling information over to the Covid inquiry, and it is the duty of every member of the Parliament to find out why. If the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were confident in their positions, they would refer themselves to the independent adviser for the Scottish ministerial code. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about. Instead, we have a whitewash amendment from the Scottish Government, which lays bare its arrogance and completely avoids any scrutiny or accountability.

That brings me on to the WhatsApp messages. We have been told about the 14,000 or 28,000 messages that the Government has handed over, but every time it is challenged on deletion of WhatsApp messages, it crumbles, because it knows: it knows that people who made key decisions during the pandemic have manually deleted WhatsApp messages.

Jamie Dawson from the UK Covid inquiry said that the majority of messages have not been retained. Some SNP members will say, “So what if those messages have been deleted?” We have been told that the Scottish Government did not make key decisions on that platform. I challenge every minister—or former minister—to prove that no key decisions were taken and to prove that the information that was deleted was not relevant to the Covid inquiry. However, we cannot prove a negative, can we?

People are up in arms about this because the key players—Jason Leitch and Nicola Sturgeon—were told not to delete messages during the pandemic because they could be relevant afterwards. However, even the UK inquiry now believes that vital information could be lost. I find that shameful, and I am sure that the bereaved families who are wanting answers will also find that behaviour shameful.

I referenced the SNP’s secret Scotland earlier, because transparency has never been the party’s strong point. We have seen it time and again—with Ferguson Marine, the botched Police Scotland information technology systems, the false claims around offshore wind and—who can forget?—the party’s finances probe. That is, by the way, still on-going. The governing party is shrouded in secrecy, and Scotland is worse off for it.

Members across the chamber have a choice. They have the choice to stand up to the Government and show that transparency matters, and that truth in the Parliament is more important than partisan political interests.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Does the member agree that it is incumbent on the members of the Parliament to be transparent, and that it is also a requirement under the Nolan principles that we be open and transparent? That demand is made on us when we take those roles.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will give you the time back.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Absolutely. That is why the debate is so important. I am sure that there are many colleagues from all parties who stood for election for the same reasons as I stood, which were to represent their communities and to make sure that Scotland is a better place. They did not stand for election to defend sleekit behaviour and evasion, and to be lobby fodder for a Government that is determined to pull the wool over the eyes of the chamber and the public. It is past time that the Parliament stood up for itself and that its members showed some backbone and forced the Government to tell the truth.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The subject of cross-Government transparency is an important one and impacts all levels of Government, whether at Westminster, here at Holyrood or in local government. The original title for today’s debate was “Cross-Government Transparency”, but none of those words appear in the motion, which I find a bit surprising: so be it.

It is worth reflecting on how we as a Parliament dealt with the Covid pandemic. We had frequent statements from the First Minister and other ministers, with ample opportunities to ask questions about decisions, such as why they were being made and when they were coming into force. We also had a Covid-19 committee, of which I was a member and which, when I joined it, was chaired by Donald Cameron. From memory, I have to say that it was fairly chaired. Week by week, the relevant minister and, usually, experts such as Jason Leitch and Linda Bauld answered questions in public or advised the committee. We should also remember that we were in unknown territory, with limited information but having to make urgent decisions. It is very easy to go back and consider with hindsight how we might have made different decisions, but, broadly speaking, there was a lot of agreement here at Holyrood—

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To be able to look back with hindsight means that we have to look at all the records that are there, and we are talking about the fact that we do not have them. How does the member square that circle?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

T

he question is relevant records, and I do not want to go into all—[

Interruption

.] No, that is what was asked for in February, as I understand it—the relevant records, not every cup of tea or coffee or whatever else.

I will carry on. We might have made different decisions looking back on things, but, broadly speaking, there was a lot of agreement here. As members will know, the Finance and Public Administration Committee recently carried out an inquiry into Government decision making. We spoke to past and present civil servants and ministers and came up with a number of recommendations.

However, it seems to be clear to me that, whatever systems we have, there needs to be some private space in which ideas can be bounced around and people can brainstorm and talk off the record. Yes—as principles, openness and transparency are good things, but we all need space with family, friends and staff in which we can let go, think out loud and bounce ideas around. I think that it was thought that WhatsApp could be used as that space.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will John Mason give way?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

No—n

ot just now.

How were we using WhatsApp at that time, and how do we use it now? I looked back at the COVID-19 Recovery Committee WhatsApp group from June 2021 onwards, and I will quote some of the messages from members, some of whom are in the chamber today. If anyone would like to read all the messages, they are very welcome to do so. Murdo Fraser said:

“Well done Siobhian, expertly chaired”.

Brian Whittle said:

“Still in traffic on M8”.

Murdo Fraser said:

“I’m in a long queue trying to get into the car park”.

Jim Fairlie said:

“Morning all, Happy New Year to you all”.

Brian Whittle said:

“I’m running 5 minutes late”.

There were quite a few messages from him like that. Such messages show what WhatsApp was and is being used for.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Does that not just reinforce what has already been said during the debate, in that understanding the culture surrounding decisions helps us to understand the context in which conclusions were reached?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you the time back, Mr Mason.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

My thinking is that—

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Why didn’t you read out any of your messages?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Could I speak, please?

My thinking is that, ideally, WhatsApp should not be used for decision making that is key or relevant. I would not be surprised if there were no relevant messages on WhatsApp. We will see whether that is the case in due course.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Will John Mason give way?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

No.

I am sorry, but I have given way already.

I am fascinated that the Tories are making what I think is a mountain out of a molehill in today’s debate. We could have discussed the situation in Israel and Gaza, inflation, college disputes or fire service pay, but no, the Conservatives want to know whether Shona Robison was stuck on the M90 or whether Humza Yousaf wanted chocolate on top of his cappuccino. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, Mr Mason. Could you resume your seat? The amount of background noise has just escalated. I encourage members to do the courtesy of listening to the member who is speaking, and the same respect will be afforded to subsequent speakers.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Thank you.

Several public inquiries are going on. What is the purpose of them? I suggest that the purpose is different for different people. Families who lost a loved one during Covid want to know what happened and why decisions were made.

I should perhaps declare an interest at this point. My mother died, aged 93, in a care home in early 2021. Visiting was very limited for almost a year, but I felt and continue to feel that that was the right way of handling things. The care home became my mother’s home, and the care staff there became her close friends—frankly, she got on better with some of them than she did with the wider family. However, even within my extended family, there is a variety of opinions as to whether more visits should have been allowed. I fear that there is no right answer to that, but many families are looking forward to whatever conclusions the inquiry reaches.

However, it has to be said that parts of the media and some Opposition members have different hopes for the inquiry. Some just want juicy gossip to boost their audience numbers, whereas some in the chamber and outside just want to give the SNP and the Scottish Government a kicking.

On the subject of transparency, it is useful to compare Holyrood with Westminster and elsewhere. For a start, as MSPs, we are all elected, which would seem obvious in a democracy. However, members of the House of Lords are, of course, not elected, and it is not at all transparent how people even become members of it. We now have the ridiculous situation in which the Foreign Secretary is in the House of Lords rather than in the House of Commons, so he cannot be routinely questioned by elected MPs.

Yes, openness and transparency are good things, but a balance needs to be struck. Publishing everything can have a chilling effect and limit fresh thinking. There needs to be a space for privacy and confidentiality. If that is not to be WhatsApp, it needs to be somewhere else.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The pandemic was perhaps the most extraordinary situation that any of us will ever have faced in our lives or will ever face again. Thousands of people lost their lives. I am very sorry, but that is not gossip. To suggest that an interest in gossip is why this issue is being discussed in the chamber is, frankly, to cast aspersions on fellow members. I reject, as strongly as I can, some of the assertions that were made by the previous speaker. We have to understand what decisions were made on the basis of what information and in what context, because the results of those decisions cost people’s lives.

We have already heard from Alex Cole-Hamilton about the situation with care homes, which was perhaps one of the most sensitive periods in the whole pandemic. More than 2,300 excess deaths occurred in care homes in 2020. We were told time and again that that decision in April was made because we did not have the knowledge and the science to indicate that asymptomatic transmission might be possible or that it was a significant risk. The problem with that is that, if we look at the timeline of published science and evidence, it does not hold up.

On 28 January 2020, Jim McMenamin, an interim clinical director at Health Protection Scotland, attended the second meeting of the scientific advisory group for emergencies—SAGE—on Covid-19, where it was stated that there was

“limited evidence of asymptomatic transmission, but early indications imply some is occurring”.

On 19 February, Japan’s National Institute of Infectious Diseases suggested that there had been asymptomatic transmission on the Diamond Princess, which subsequently resulted in other papers that went on to confirm that the majority of transmissions on the Diamond Princess were due to asymptomatic transmission.

On 5 March, that was confirmed in

The New England Journal of Medicine

, one of the world’s leading medical journals. That led, on 9 March, to the UK Health Minister, Lord Bethell, telling the House of Lords that

“large numbers of people are infectious or infected but are completely asymptomatic and never go near a test kit.”—[

Official Report

,

House of Lords

, 9 March 2020; Vol 802, c 428GC.]

Quite simply, those sequences of scientific papers and stated positions in public bodies and parliamentary committees contradict and contrast with the fact that the First Minister at the time has said, time and again, that we did not have the knowledge.

We need to know whether the Government did not have that knowledge and was not looking at that information and that science, or whether it deliberately disregarded it. Only by looking at the full context of decision making can we know that. We need to know whether hyperlinks to those papers were being shared by officials and ministers in the Government. We need to understand that context, because that is the only way that we can really understand the nature of those decisions and the consequences that resulted.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

We knew quite a lot at the time. One of the things that we knew was that hospitals in Italy were absolutely swamped with people, and it seemed to a lot of us—including, I think, members across the chamber—that getting people out of hospital had to be the priority.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The First Minister at the time has said, time and again, that we did not know that asymptomatic transmission was a risk. We need to understand whether the Government was taking cognisance of the latest science at the time.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Daniel Johnson is quite right, and the minutes of the Covid advisory committee of 20 April 2020 could not be clearer. They say that hospitals were screaming about asymptomatic transmission, and yet the same meeting was hearing about officials moving people out untested or having tested positive into Scottish care homes. Those two things were known at the same time. We need to understand why that advice was ignored.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Indeed, we do. If those facts and points that were raised in those bodies were being discussed in WhatsApp groups, we need to know that. Quite frankly, right now, we cannot confidently say that the messages will be released, because the Government’s position on what would be released has been all over the place. We have had the First Minister saying that everything would be released and that there would be absolute openness and transparency, but we have also heard that messages were being routinely and systematically deleted. There is, at best, confusion on the issue.

To speak to the heart of the motion, we need an investigation into whether, wittingly or unwittingly, the First Minister misled Parliament. Frankly, all of us are profoundly confused about what the Government was retaining and on what basis. Again, the Government is relying on dancing on the heads of pins with regard to particular words.

Time and again, we hear about relevant information but, frankly and simply, it is up to the UK inquiry to decide what is relevant. Why does the Scottish Government not trust it? I simply do not understand. It is as though it expects the UK inquiry to break privacy rules and the law. The UK inquiry will look at what is handed over and judge whether it is relevant and whether it needs to be redacted. Why does the Scottish Government not trust it?

Above all else, we in the chamber all know some simple truths about what happened. We all know that Government decision making shrank to a very narrow number of ministers and close advisers and that, most of the time, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were in close consultation with key special advisers. I am not saying that that was necessarily the wrong thing to do. Those were extraordinary times, because it was a crisis, but we need to understand what happened and whether that cost lives. Ultimately, we need to learn the lessons. That will not be the last time that this country faces a crisis but, unless we learn the lessons, lives will be lost again, needlessly, all because this Government cannot be transparent.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Making easy political points is not what constituents want to see from their elected representatives. [

Interruption

.] Let me finish. That is not what they want to see, particularly in a debate such as this. In his opening comments, Douglas Ross stated that the debate should not be party political, and I took him at his word. Sadly, as the debate has gone on, some of the comments and, certainly, the barracking from his back benchers have gone against what he said in his opening comments.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I was genuine in my comment that the debate should be above party politics. That is why I think that SNP and Green members and the Government should be independent-minded and look at the facts. Looking at all the details, does Stuart McMillan believe that the request from the UK Covid inquiry in February for all the messages constituted a request for those messages, or does he agree with Shona Robison that the request happened only in September, just a few weeks ago?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Stuart McMillan, I can give you the time back.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

The point about relevance is really important in that—

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No—it is not.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am sorry—we will have to agree to disagree.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I seek your guidance. The standing orders are very clear that we must treat each other with respect. Rather than cast suspicion on their motives and on whether people are presenting facts and arguments at face value, surely members should be respectful and consider that other members are speaking in good faith.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I thank Daniel Johnson for his point. I think that, to date, the debate has been fairly respectful. I will intervene if I do not think that that is the case.

I invite Stuart McMillan to continue and I will give him the time back.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

In today’s debate, Scottish Conservatives have put forward their opinions but, in my opinion, the First Minister and the Scottish Government have been absolutely committed to openness and transparency. The First Minister has been clear that neither he nor the Deputy First Minister have misled Parliament. The Scottish Government has already provided more than 19,000 documents to the UK inquiry, in addition to the 14,000 WhatsApp messages.

For absolute clarity, the Scottish Government has complied and worked with both inquiries and will continue to do so. Some people will suggest that those statements imply that the Scottish Government does not appreciate scrutiny, but that could not be further from the truth. I firmly believe—and my SNP colleagues feel the same—that scrutiny is the bedrock that underlies effective governance. That is why, in December 2021, the Scottish Government established the first public inquiry in the UK to examine the response to Covid-19, ahead of the UK Government commencing the UK-wide public inquiry. At the heart of the motion is the Covid-19 pandemic, which impacted every one of us and changed our lives indefinitely.

John Mason spoke about his family situation. My mum went into a care home just over a year ago—obviously, not during the Covid period. Throughout the whole Covid period, there was no Covid in the care home that my mother went into. Covid started to go into the home only once we started to go back into a more normal society.

Every Government the world over was taking decisions based on its own context. In some countries, the response was driven by scientific understanding, whereas in others it was driven by ideological agendas. Scientists became the biggest asset to Governments during the pandemic but, ultimately, it was up to politicians to decide what course of action, what guidance and what legislation was introduced in response to Covid-19.

As John Mason touched on, day in, day out, in the chamber and committees of the Parliament, ministers were being questioned about their decisions and what they were planning to do. It is important that we reflect on those decisions. We cannot speak for other nations, but the most important way of recognising the loss and suffering of the people of Scotland and the wider UK population during the pandemic is to learn from the evidence, including the scientific evidence that Daniel Johnson referenced earlier.

To go back to today’s motion, in one of my opening statements, I said that the Scottish Government has already provided more than 19,000 documents to the UK inquiry, over and above the 14,000 WhatsApp messages that have also been handed over. Since December 2022, the Scottish Government has been assisting the inquiry by providing a large volume of evidence to the inquiry team, including corporate and individual statements and extensive documentation. To date, the Scottish Government has provided 25 detailed corporate statements and it has also been involved in the request for 89 individual statements.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the member not have a concern, at least, that it is the Scottish Government that is making the decisions on what is relevant and what is not relevant to disclose?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Some of the examples that we heard from John Mason probably cover the issue of relevance. Once again, let me be clear that there has never been any hesitation on the part of former members of the Scottish Government to provide all the information that it holds. When appropriately and legally requested to do so by the UK and Scottish inquiries, the Scottish Government has co-operated fully and will continue to do so.

The Deputy First Minister has already set out that, on examining the content of WhatsApp messages, it became clear to the Scottish Government that they held some sensitive personal data, which means that, under data protection legislation, there must be a clear legal basis for providing that information. That is why the Scottish Government requested a section 21 notice, which would give that legal basis for the provision.

We have all heard some of the examples of what happened at Westminster during the pandemic.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the member give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is winding up.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I have already taken two interventions.

I gently suggest that the Conservatives try to convince their colleagues in Westminster to behave somewhat differently, in contrast to some of the colleagues that I have here in the Scottish Parliament.

The reality is that the Scottish Government’s messages that will be handed over to the UK Covid-19 inquiry will be starkly different from those of Westminster politicians. Unlike the UK Government’s attempts to limit the requests for information from the chair of the inquiry, Baroness Hallett, the Scottish Government has always committed to fully co-operating with the UK inquiry and the Scottish public inquiry. Going back to the section 21 notice, which was received on Monday 30 October and was actioned in line with the UK inquiry’s deadline of Monday 6 October, the Scottish Government has consistently acted in line with its records management policies and relevant legal obligations with regard to collating and storing corporate information.

I truly hope that the public see through some of what we have heard today from some of the Scottish Conservatives. I genuinely believe that the motion is nothing more than an attempt to deflect from what we have seen in Westminster in comparison to what we have seen here in Scotland.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The SNP Government rightly and richly deserves the wretched reputation that it has earned when it comes to its record on transparency. This secretive Government picks and chooses how and when it engages with issues of significant legal and public interest.

It is self-evident and beyond reasonable doubt that Humza Yousaf and Shona Robison have misled the Scottish Parliament. They made and repeated false and misleading claims about when the UK Covid inquiry requested crucial WhatsApp messages. Grieving families are rightly demanding answers, and they deserve them. However, sadly, the Government will not give them all that they need to know to bring justice and closure. Transparency and, as a result, the truth are defined as optional extras in the SNP’s cynical political playbook.

Let us look at the evidence that is before us. In June 2021, the UK Government wrote to the Scottish Government requesting that it did not destroy material relevant to the UK Covid inquiry. Two months later, Nicola Sturgeon announced a separate Scottish Covid inquiry, when she said that nothing will be “off limits” to the Scottish Government when it comes to providing information. How shallow that sounds now.

By December, John Swinney, who now appears as a Praetorian bodyguard accompanying the spectral figure of Nicola Sturgeon around this Parliament, said:

“I pledge that the Scottish Government will engage, as I know that this Parliament and everyone in Scotland will, to support Lady Poole in this most important”—[

Official Report

, 14 December 2021; c 74.]

inquiry.

In August 2022, the Scottish Covid inquiry wrote to the Scottish Government requesting that information relevant to the pandemic be retained. That November, the UK Covid inquiry asked the Scottish Government about potentially relevant messages, including WhatsApp messages, during the pandemic.

In February 2023, the UK Covid inquiry explicitly asked the Scottish Government for any WhatsApp messages “relating to ... key decisions” taken during the pandemic. Let us note the wording here: “relating to”. That means messages involving discussions around and discussion about those decisions, even when those decisions were taken elsewhere. The fact that decisions may be formally taken in a different forum or in a different context cannot cynically become the Government’s default defence for deleting and withholding important WhatsApp messages relating to those decisions.

This June, Humza Yousaf said that all material that was asked for by the inquiry would be provided. Over the summer, requests for WhatsApps were sent to individual ministers, former ministers and civil servants in the Scottish Government, yet the First Minister and his deputy still claim that they were first requested in September. That was plainly untrue. Their attempt to deflect involves a claim that they had interpreted earlier requests too narrowly. That simply does not stack up.

In August, the Scottish Government had already confirmed to the UK Covid inquiry the existence of WhatsApp groups that were used by the Scottish Government. It conceded that they existed, but it still would not hand over those messages. For clarity, let us not forget that Humza Yousaf said in June that

“WhatsApp messages, emails, Signal messages, Telegram messages or whatever—will absolutely be handed over to the Covid inquiries and handed over to them in full.”—[

Official Report

, 29 June 2023; c 15.]

How can that possibly be consistent with reports that the former First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, deleted her WhatsApp messages despite earlier assurance from her to the contrary? That follows a pattern of deflection, diversion, distraction, deletion and, at times, outright deceit.

A review of similar events proves a pattern of behaviour that supports our motion. SNP Government officials held deposit return scheme meetings verbally to avoid correspondence being obtained through freedom of information requests. During Alex Salmond’s judicial review, the SNP Government’s own legal counsel admitted that it could not advise the court that the Scottish Government had discharged its duty of candour.

The Salmond inquiry committee found that the SNP Government’s refusal to hand over documents had impeded its scrutiny function. Nicola Sturgeon admitted that there were no minutes of notes of a crucial meeting with former Ferguson Marine owner Jim McColl. The SNP Government refused to reveal the outcome of a bullying probe into one of its own ministers. This month, the health secretary, Michael Matheson, agreed to pay back £11,000 in roaming charges, 10 months after they were paid by the taxpayer, but only after that scandal hit the headlines. That is the SNP’s track record on transparency, and it should be ashamed.

The Scottish Government’s ministerial code says that ministers should resign if they “knowingly mislead” Parliament. We will only know that if Humza Yousaf and Shona Robison refer themselves to the independent adviser on the ministerial code.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

It has now been nearly four years since health professionals first took notice of a novel virus outbreak in China. In the months that followed, Governments around the world scrambled to mitigate the health, social and economic effects of the unprecedented situation. People in Scotland were asked to make sacrifices to ensure that those who were most vulnerable were shielded from the worst of the pandemic before the heroic effort to develop and procure a vaccine was completed.

Despite those efforts, many families found themselves bereaved because of the pandemic—my sympathies go to John Mason, who shared his own story today. Many more are still suffering the effects of long Covid, and the overall pandemic and repeated lockdowns have taken a toll on the health, education and wellbeing of the population that is difficult to quantify.

Because of the severe effect that the pandemic has had, it is right that we learn from the evidence of that time to find out what we could have done better. Doing so will also improve Government decision making during any potential future pandemic, and therefore save lives and prevent suffering. That will not only help all of us in the future; it is an important way to recognise the loss and suffering of the people of Scotland and of the wider UK population during the past few years.

It was for those reasons that, in December 2021, the Scottish Government established the first public inquiry in the UK to examine the response to Covid-19. That was ahead of the UK Government’s commencement of the UK-wide public inquiry. That the Scottish Government showed the initiative to establish that inquiry underlines its commitment to openness and transparency. It recognises that scrutiny is the bedrock that underlies effective governance.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Fulton MacGregor has just said that scrutiny underlines the integrity of Government decisions. Does he not welcome the scrutiny that would be offered by the independent adviser on the ministerial code to prove or otherwise the version of events given by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Fulton MacGregor, I can give you the time back.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Douglas Ross

heard what the Deputy First Minister said. I welcome her response on that.

The Scottish Government has co-operated and will continue to co-operate with the Scottish and UK-wide inquiries on the pandemic. A huge volume of data has already been provided to the UK inquiry. Nearly 20,000 documents have been passed on, and that figure does not include the nearly 15,000 WhatsApp messages that have been sent in addition.

As can be imagined, that is a huge amount of data. In managing that data, the Scottish Government has consistently acted in line with its data management policies and relevant legal obligations concerning the collecting and keeping of that information. The Scottish Government’s records management policy ensures that material that is relevant to the Covid inquiries is retained. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of data storage, and records management processes have been established for recording decisions made by ministers and officials, which form part of the Scottish Government corporate record. It is important that that policy also covers messaging applications, such as WhatsApp, which has been a key talking point in the debate thus far.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

No, I have already taken one. I give my apologies to Mr Greene.

The nuance in this debate centres around the requesting of a section 21 notice with regard to WhatsApp messages. The Deputy First Minister has already clarified that personal information was present in that data and, as such, a clear legal basis was needed to provide that data. Following data protection guidelines, the Scottish Government requested a section 21 notice, which was received just over two weeks ago. That action was to comply with the Data Protection Act 2018, using mechanisms found in the Inquiries Act 2005. The Scottish Government conformed with the deadline to provide the messages to the inquiry, and all messages were given to the inquiry on 6 November.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I cannot; I would like to make some progress.

Any assertions about what those messages may or may not contain are conjecture at this point. It is important that everyone in the chamber and beyond allows the inquiry to determine the importance of the content of those messages. The bottom line is that the Scottish Government has acted legally, and it will continue to co-operate fully with both inquiries.

The readiness of the Scottish Government to hand over WhatsApp messages should be commended by everyone in the chamber. I gently say to Conservative members that all Governments that are involved in the inquiry should show the same readiness because, at the end of the day, we all must remember that both inquiries are about real people who want answers—real people, businesses and organisations in our constituencies that were affected by a whole array of decisions that were made or not made, as the case may be.

People in care homes have already been discussed—

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

No, I will not take any more interventions.

We must all keep in our minds the children in schools, people suffering from long Covid and businesses that closed and never recovered.

There should be absolutely no party politics in this debate. We have heard that before. The inquiries should be allowed to do their work and get the answers that the public deserve and need.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Parliament is using its time today to talk about something that matters and which it has the power to do something about. We are talking about Government secrecy—specifically, the desperate lengths that the SNP goes to to shut down legitimate and important public scrutiny. It should have preserved and handed over its WhatsApp messages to the Covid inquiry, but instead it has chosen to be slippery and evasive.

This all feels familiar. This is not the first time that the SNP has run for the shadows when faced with the disinfecting sunlight of scrutiny. It used exactly the same playbook during the Alex Salmond inquiry. Now, as then, it hides behind process. It delays, dodges and stonewalls; it prevaricates, misremembers and misrepresents. It deploys sophistry, selective amnesia, bad faith and bluster, and point blank refuses to do the right thing. The SNP uses a broad spectrum of deceit, from the political equivalent of “The dog ate my homework” right through to a low cunning that would make Machiavelli blush.

That was as painful and infuriating to watch as a member of the public as it is now as an MSP. Back then, the SNP failed alleged victims of sexual harassment by its former leader, and now it fails grieving families who lost loved ones to Covid. Both groups were treated with disrespect and were considered to be of less value to an SNP that will always prioritise the good of the party over the common good.

Let us compare the two events. The SNP promised to co-operate fully with the Salmond inquiry. It promised transparency and to freely hand over any and all material, just as it does now with the Covid inquiry. However, what happened then and what is happening now? Back then, Nicola Sturgeon held numerous meetings with Salmond while he was being investigated over sexual harassment complaints. No records were taken—or they may have been destroyed. We do not know for sure.

Now Sturgeon and others have reportedly deleted WhatsApp messages. We do not know how many messages, and we do not know what they said. It is likely that the people of Scotland will never know. During the Salmond inquiry, the SNP tried to prevent the release of documents. The inquiry committee complained about being obstructed. Let us not forget that it included SNP MSPs and an SNP convener. For the first time ever, Parliament had to resort to using a section 23 order to force the release of documents.

We see the same secretive agenda with the Covid inquiry. Key evidence has to be dragged out of the SNP. The inquiry has been asking for WhatsApp messages for over a year.

Then there are the shifting sands—the changing of stories. In the Salmond inquiry, four senior Government officials had to correct false statements. The SNP’s then chief executive was accused of perjury after contradicting his own evidence three times. In relation to the Covid inquiry, Humza Yousaf, who really should be here today, and Shona Robison have been forced to change their story after the inquiry demanded that they correct the record to the Parliament.

Then there are the stalling tactics. During the Salmond inquiry, the SNP delayed everything until the last minute. Access to crucial legal advice was refused time and again in defiance of two votes in the chamber. It was only when my party brought a vote of no confidence in the then Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, that some of the advice was finally released.

We see the same with the Covid inquiry. Now, as then, it is up to the Scottish Conservatives to use every parliamentary lever available to us. Now, as then, the SNP has misled and disrespected Parliament. It also disrespects the people of Scotland. MSPs from every party, including the SNP, can join us today in holding it to account by backing our motion.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I would like to start with a quote—I was actually a bit worried earlier, because a lot of what was in my speech was used by Alex Cole-Hamilton in his speech. The quote is from Nicola Sturgeon at around the start of the Covid crisis. She said:

“I understand, because I’m First Minister leading a government, how difficult and unprecedented this situation is. We’re all trying to make the best decisions.

We can undoubtedly get things wrong along the way, as every government across the world will be, and I’ve been very clear about that from the outset.

I’ll make mistakes, everybody involved in leading these responses will make mistakes, but it’s really important that we take the best decisions that we can at every single stage and try to learn from that as we go.”

I remember that time so vividly, because it had such a profound effect on me, my constituents, my family, my friends and my relatives who died at that time, in difficult circumstances. That is what we should be talking about today—the people and the effect that Covid had on them.

I remember sitting in a room upstairs with many of the people who are in the chamber today, getting briefings from Jason Leitch and the chief medical officer. They were open and transparent and willing to answer any of the questions that people in the room had about the policies that the Scottish Government was taking to try to keep people safe.

I do not remember anyone at that time making comments that they distrusted the chief medical officer or Jason Leitch, or that they were not all thinking that we were in it together. I do remember that there were never any suggestions at that time that there would be a policy to get herd immunity or that the bodies could “pile high”.

Everybody was concentrating on what the inquiry is about, and what today should have been about in this Parliament—people getting the answers that they deserve and which are needed, so that the learning from that experience can be taken forward. We do not know when there might be another such crisis and another pandemic.

The tone of the debate has been completely wrong. A pantomime villain is being sought by members across the Opposition benches, but the truth is that, at the time, everybody was just having to adapt to Covid by working differently, communicating differently and trying to do the best that they could. My team introduced WhatsApp and Slack at that time, because we were trying to do the best that we could to ensure that we were still able to provide a service to our constituents in the most difficult of circumstances.

The Scottish Government is complying with the inquiry. It has already provided 19,000 documents, in addition to 14,000 WhatsApp messages, in line with its own policy on how decision making should have been recorded at that time.

I cannot believe that we are hearing all this. I remember when there was a crisis: Catherine Calderwood made a mistake that was unforgivable and lost her job over it. At the same time, what we were seeing at Westminster was Dominic Cummings going on family trips to Barnard Castle and treating people with absolute contempt.

I know that hearing the WhatsApp messages that have come out in the Covid inquiry with regard to the atmosphere in Downing Street will have been really hard for members on the Conservative benches. It has really not been edifying in any way to see the contempt with which some civil servants treated politicians, the contempt with which some of the decisions were made and the attitude that meant that the individuals who were affected by Covid were not given the prominence that they deserved.

A lot has been said today about the nature of those decisions and the context in which they were made. I know that there are people who will not agree with me, but I believe that the context of the decisions that were made in Scotland—with the team of medical experts and the First Minister that we had at the time and the transparency that she showed every single day as she stood up to the press’s scrutiny, in marked contrast to Boris Johnson—shows that those decisions were made in the very best interests of the people of Scotland.

However, that is not for us to judge. It is not for the people on these benches or the people on the other benches to judge. It is for the people of Scotland to look at what happened in order to make their own decisions about whom they trust—whom they trusted at that time—and where they looked for their information. It was not the Downing Street briefings—that is absolutely true.

I do not think that this debate has helped the families who have been affected by this situation at all. I regret what has happened here this afternoon; this has been a search for a pantomime villain who does not exist. The debate has been implausible political point scoring from the party that partied all the way through Covid.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.

If I can find agreement with the previous speaker, Clare Adamson, it is on the fact that this is about the people of Scotland. I agree with Fulton MacGregor that this is not about party politics; this is, at its foundation, about why we stood to be parliamentarians. It is about what is encompassed in our standing orders about events taking place in public and in our guidance to MSPs on their general conduct. It is about what the Scottish ministerial code seeks to embody with regard to what we expect from our Government.

All of this goes back to 1995 with the founding of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was chaired by Lord Nolan. The committee was asked to say why the public was losing confidence in politicians. It then took evidence and, in 1995—before, in all honesty, most of us entered a professional political life—it founded the seven principles that are drawn to the attention of MSPs, if not on the first day that we come to the chamber, then certainly during the first week of induction.

Those same seven principles are pointed at by our councillors who serve in local authorities, by our MPs who go to Westminster and within health boards and other emanations of the state. They set out the expectations on us when we stand up and speak for people or for a subset of the people of Scotland, whether at constituency or regional level.

The principles talk about selflessness, integrity and objectivity—in other words, that we are impartial, fair, judge on merit, use the best evidence and act without discrimination. They also talk about accountability. I thank Douglas Ross for allowing my intervention, because the fact is that, under the principles,

“Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.”

It is not just about taking decisions, and it is not just about taking the right decision—it is about being open to saying, “This is why I took this decision. Hold me to account.”

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Does Martin Whitfield agree that Clare Adamson’s speech reflected a time when the First Minister had a certain degree of latitude in the chamber for the decisions that she took—a blank cheque, as it were—because we were in uncharted and scary waters? Does he also agree that, as a result of that blank cheque, she should, with confidence, provide all the material around the decisions that she took, because there should be nothing to hide?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Martin Whitfield. I can give you the time back, Mr Whitfield.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Indeed, the circumstances of Covid tested the democratic settlement that we have with the electorate and the country. They proved the worth of those Nolan principles. It is in the hardest of moments that we need to look back at what makes this state different from other less democratic states, and different from a dictatorship: it is the ability to be accountable, open, and honest, and to show leadership.

On many occasions in this chamber and in discussions in this Parliament, we have heard about the role of leadership and how we are leaders in our community. We turn to our young people and ask them to be leaders in their schools. The Nolan principles require holders of public office to exhibit those same principles that I mentioned in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support those principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

That is important, because, in the foreword to the Scottish ministerial code, our current First Minister echoed previous ministerial codes, but he also said:

“As First Minister, I have promised to lead Scotland in the interests of all our people”—

the people that Clare Adamson spoke about—

“and to work to earn”—

this is the important bit—

“and re-earn the respect and trust of the people of Scotland.”

The quote goes on:

“That is why I am pleased to issue this ... Ministerial Code which sets the highest standards of propriety and transparency for Government Ministers. All Scottish Ministers, including myself, are bound by its terms ... ensuring integrity, accountability and honesty at every level of leadership.”

The First Minister also said:

“I will lead by example”.

The key message when the Nolan principles were reviewed was that many of those whose integrity was called into question, or has been called into question in recent months and years, seemed to have behaved inappropriately, not because they were unaware of what was expected—that is, under the Nolan principles—but because they did not find it expedient to do so. High standards of behaviour need to be understood as a matter of personal responsibility.

Today’s debate speaks to that. It speaks to why we sit in this Parliament, and to what the Scottish Government owes the people whom Clare Adamson talked about. Lord Evans, the current chair, said:

“The damage done to the trust and confidence that the public have in those in political and public life has been significant.”

Let us end that now, here in Scotland. Let us show that we stand by those Nolan principles, even when it is not expedient to do so.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Having listened to what has been said so far, I want to make a few

key points in the debate. What Clare Adamson said about what the former First Minister said is absolutely relevant and appropriate.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

We must remember the work of Nicola Sturgeon and, of course, Jeane Freeman, Jason Leitch and Gregor Smith. They put work in every day when we were witnessing on our television screens what was happening with the pandemic around the globe.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?