WhatsApp Messages
To ask the Scottish Government what its current policy is regarding the deletion or retention of WhatsApp messages by ministers. (S6T-01757)
I refer members to my statement to this chamber on 31 October last year. The policy regarding deletion or retention of WhatsApp messages is set out in the Scottish Government’s well-established and overarching records management policy, and supplemented by the mobile messaging apps guidance.
I reiterate that the Scottish Government does not routinely use WhatsApp for decision making or to provide advice to ministers. In the event that WhatsApp were to be used for such a purpose, the information would be retained for the corporate record, in line with existing Scottish Government guidance and policy.
I declare an interest as a practising national health service general practitioner.
As a GP, I worked on the front lines during the pandemic. My priority was always to look after my patients’ health. However, in contrast, during the Covid pandemic, the Scottish Government was joking about deleting its WhatsApp messages, with one official joking that
“Plausible deniability is my middle name”.
We know that the shameful culture of secrecy came from the very top, with Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney deleting all their messaging. The same Nicola Sturgeon stood at the daily briefings, with a pretence of moral superiority, while behind the scenes it is clear that the Scottish Government was mocking us, believing that none of that would ever come to light.
The Government is shameful. How can it be trusted by the people of Scotland? Will the cabinet secretary take this opportunity to apologise for that behaviour to the people of Scotland?
First and foremost, it is important that the United Kingdom Covid inquiry is allowed to do its job in scrutinising all the decision making and the messages. It is for the inquiry to determine whether it has concerns about the application of the mobile messaging policy or its content, and we should allow the inquiry to get on with that. That is one aspect of the many issues on which the inquiry is taking evidence and reflecting.
The important thing in all this, for those who worked on the front line and for the Covid bereaved families, is that lessons are learned from the pandemic to help us prepare better for the future. That is why the Government will fully comply with the UK inquiry and why we established a separate Scottish inquiry—we were the only part of the UK to do so.
There was no apology there.
Deleting WhatsApp messages was not the only skewed priority from the nationalists during the pandemic. Extraordinary minutes from a Scottish National Party Government Cabinet meeting confirmed that the issue of
“restarting work on independence and a referendum with the arguments reflecting the experience of the coronavirus crisis”
was considered at the height of the public health emergency. That shows that, no matter how serious the situation is, nothing will stop the SNP trying to pursue its political obsession with independence. Perhaps that was among the reasons why all electronic messaging was deleted. Can the cabinet secretary look the public in the eye and tell people that campaigning for independence and another referendum was the right priority during the height of the pandemic?
It is clear that the Scottish Government’s focus was on the pandemic and on dealing with the issues of the day in relation to the response to the pandemic. Looking at all the information that has been provided to the inquiry will support that position.
I should say to Sandesh Gulhane that the inquiry should be allowed to interrogate the evidence that is put in front of it. It will interrogate the people who were core participants and who were at the front of leadership in the Scottish Government at that time, some of whom are no longer in office and some of whom are still in office. The inquiry should be allowed to do that in the same way as, when it was sitting in London, it interrogated some of the decision making, conversations and chat that happened across social media at the time.
Some of that is very uncomfortable—there is no doubt about that—but what is important and should be at the heart of the process is that lessons are learned about the decision making on the pandemic so that, if it happens again, as it might well do, we get the response right and are as fully compliant and front-footed as possible.
Ken Thomson, the man who drafted the Scottish Government’s records management policy, was advising people on how to avoid complying with it. The national clinical director, Jason Leitch, who helped shape the Covid regulations, was advising the current First Minister on how to avoid the rules. Nicola Sturgeon, who promised transparency, has, alongside John Swinney and senior civil servants, deleted WhatsApp messages on an industrial scale. There were no lessons learned there, Deputy First Minister.
Whether messages were deleted nightly or weekly, it is clear that Jason Leitch wiped his messages completely and seemed to find the period during the pandemic all quite funny, judging from the messages that we have seen. That is not just a matter for the inquiry—it is a matter for the Scottish Government, too. If the Scottish Government agrees that Jason Leitch’s behaviour was inappropriate, is it not time that he was sacked?
As Jackie Baillie knows, Jason Leitch is not here to defend himself. I do not think that it is fair, in this chamber, to focus on any individual. The inquiry is the place where people should be interrogated, whether it be Jason Leitch or the former First Minister, who of course will give evidence, as will the current First Minister. It should be for the inquiry to interrogate the evidence, whether on messages, decision making or anything else.
The issue is not the frequency of deletion of messages but the importance of capturing any relevant information in line with records management policy. Whether that information is captured on a day-to-day, week-to-week or month-to-month basis, it is important that information on decision making and salient points are captured under the records management policy.
That is in line with the section 61 code of practice on records management, on which we consulted the Scottish Information Commissioner. The code of practice states that information should be kept only as long as it is needed and that, provided that that duty is met, the medium that contained the information can be deleted. What happened was in line with what was agreed with the Scottish Information Commissioner.
As I have said, the inquiry will be able to put all these questions to anyone who is in front of it. It is important that the inquiry be allowed to get on with its job.
The Deputy First Minister talked about lessons being learned as a result of the inquiry. Right now, tens of thousands of Covid bereaved families are looking to the inquiry for answers and lessons, but they might be forever denied those answers and lessons because, despite assurances that were made to this Parliament and the national media, it seems that Nicola Sturgeon never had any intention of passing her WhatsApp messages—messages that would have shown the culture and calculation behind her pandemic response—to the inquiry that she knew was sure to follow. Perhaps that—the denial of justice for the bereaved families of the pandemic—is the biggest scandal in the history of devolution. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, when Nicola Sturgeon has finished giving her evidence to the inquiry, she should come to this Parliament to explain herself?
First of all, the Covid bereaved families are, of course, at the heart of this. That is why it is quite right that the inquiry should pursue any line of inquiry that it wants to, whether it be on mobile messaging or decision making. That is the role of the inquiry—it is why it was established. The Scottish Government established the Scottish Covid inquiry for there to be additional scrutiny of matters relating to Scotland that might not have been covered by the UK inquiry. Only the Scottish Government made such a decision.
The former First Minister has still to give her evidence. She has said that messages have been submitted to the inquiry. I think that we should allow the inquiry to take evidence from the core participants, including the former First Minister, and then to make judgments on what it has heard. I am sure that the inquiry will do that in a robust manner.
Should the police not be investigating whether the activities of the message-deleting Covid cabal were in breach of the Inquiries Act 2005?
It is, of course, for Police Scotland to determine whether it thinks that any laws have been broken.
As I have said very clearly, the records management policy is very clear about what should be retained and why. It states that any salient points, anything about decision making and anything of importance should be retained. The policy, which was developed in consultation with the Information Commissioner, also sets out when it is appropriate to delete messages. The policy is kept under constant review, and the Parliament would, of course, be made aware of any changes to it.
Any matters relating to the police are for Police Scotland, not for me.
This is not only about the ministers and civil servants whom we watched on the television. When the First Minister asked officials to look into record keeping, did he discover that other officials had also destroyed evidence? If so, how many destroyed evidence that would have been required by the inquiry?
As I have said, the Scottish Government keeps policies under review and the information governance board will consider records management when it next meets this Thursday.
The First Minister asked the permanent secretary to ensure that all steps were being taken to meet the inquiry’s requests and the Solicitor General for Scotland to satisfy herself that the Scottish Government had met all its legal obligations. That process has concluded and the First Minister has received the assurances that he required.
That confirms that, in responding to the UK and Scottish Covid inquiries, legal advice is being taken and acted on appropriately. However, as I have said, the policy is kept under constant review and a paper identifying areas for review has been tabled for discussion at the information governance board meeting this week.
Ardrossan Harbour (Irish Berth Closure)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the closure of Ardrossan harbour’s Irish berth for safety reasons after corrosion was reportedly uncovered during an inspection by divers. (S6T-01740)
I acknowledge the disruption and concern that the issue will cause for communities on Arran, on top of current weather disruption.
Peel Ports, as the harbour authority responsible for the port, advised CalMac Ferries to cease operations following routine inspection, which has impacted on the MV Alfred, which can operate only from the Irish berth. The MV Isle of Arran will remain the main vessel on the route while the MV Caledonian Isles is out of service for around five weeks for steel-work repairs.
I understand that MV Isle of Arran repairs are expected to be completed today and that updates on services for tomorrow are due imminently. The secondary route via Claonaig to Lochranza remains in operation. Trials to allow a freight-only service from Troon using the MV Alfred are to take place as soon as possible.
The MV Alfred is unable to operate from Ardrossan’s Arran berth, despite that vessel supposedly bringing much-needed resilience to the route, which cannot happen if she is tied up in Ayr. I am pleased that there have beenf developments in respect of how the MV Alfred will be utilised in the coming days. We have now found out that the MV Isle of Arran has had a mechanical failure, which has led to cancellation of all sailings to and from Ardrossan until at least noon tomorrow.
Does the minister appreciate islanders’ frustrations at the lack of communication and urgency from the harbour operator, which has been less than forthcoming about the safety concerns identified by the divers, on top of issues with the CalMac-run ferry service? What information has Peel Ports shared with the Scottish Government and its agencies?
It is clearly the responsibility of Peel Ports as the harbour operator to conduct that communication. However, contact has primarily been between CalMac and Peel Ports. Transport Scotland has been in liaison with Peel Ports to impress on it the urgency of the issue and to understand the extent of the problem. On Monday, CalMac also met the Isle of Arran ferry committee to understand some of the issues and potential solutions.
The MV Isle of Arran was able to take on all the passengers that it needed to take on with the MV Alfred being unavailable over the weekend. However, we need to make sure that good plans are in place. Weather permitting, there will be berthing trials for the MV Isle of Arran after the repairs today. That will provide some certainty for the near future. However, capacity for additional freight and passengers will be needed in the coming months.
I thank the minister for that further response. Trying to get information from Peel Ports last week was like trying to get blood out of a stone. There is clearly a breakdown in trust locally with Peel Ports due to its lack of investment in Ardrossan harbour over decades. Does the minister agree that the current episode highlights the urgent need for the harbour redevelopment project? Given the seemingly endless delays, with the latest updated business case being due next month, is she able to provide any information as to when she envisages redevelopment work beginning on site?
I assure Kenneth Gibson that the Scottish Government remains committed to ensuring that the Arran ferry service is fit for the future. I recall him asking at First Minister’s Question Time about the extent of the project because it was considering the Irish berth, which makes sense in relation to some of the most recent developments.
It is essential that the business case for the project be completed in order for us to have greater certainty about the project costs and the financial package that will be required. Work is on-going on that, including the output of studies from Peel Ports and North Ayrshire Council. We expect to discuss the business case work and options with the partners as soon as that is completed.
In a letter to the Ardrossan harbour task force in November, it was indicated that improvement works would not include replacement or strengthening of the Irish berth. Can the transport minister confirm whether the outcome of the business case for the redevelopment is still set to be delivered in February?
I hope that Katy Clark had the opportunity to hear my answer to Mr Gibson. The work on the business case continues. It includes the output of studies from Peel Ports and North Ayrshire Council, and we expect to discuss the business case work and the options with the partners as soon as it is completed. There are reports still to come in, as part of that.
On the concern about the extent of the business case, one of the reasons why we wanted to revisit the business case was to examine the scope of what would be required to ensure that there was a sustainable future to accommodate what would be required of the Ardrossan berths. I know that it was uncomfortable for the task force to receive that letter at the time, but it was realistic and appropriate to give that certainty, which, I am sure, everybody wants to see.
Housing Need
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report by Homes for Scotland highlighting that almost 700,000 households in Scotland are in housing need. (S6T-01752)
I welcome the consideration that Homes for Scotland has given to this important topic and look forward to discussing it soon.
The Scottish Government is investing £752 million through the affordable housing supply programme in 2023-24, including a £60 million national acquisition programme. I continue to work closely with local authorities to ensure that local housing needs are met.
The Scottish Government has also commissioned research into housing insecurity and hidden homelessness to improve our understanding of people who are homeless but who do not appear in Scotland’s official figures. The research will be completed by summer 2024.
I thank the minister for that answer and I note his desire to engage with Homes for Scotland. The results of the extensive survey show for the first time that more than a quarter of households in Scotland are in housing need. The headline covers 185,000 people struggling to afford their house, with 85,000 people living in houses that they cannot use because they are not adapted appropriately for people who have disabilities. The report unmasks the day-to-day reality of people living in a house that is far from being a decent home.
Without accurate measurements and an understanding of the land supply that is needed, we do not stand a chance of meeting the targets that the Government has set. What will the minister do to take urgent action, in light of the report, to ensure that local authorities have the information that they need and that they can provide the Government with accurate land supply figures on which the Government can then act?
The Homes for Scotland report is based on a sample of just under 14,000 households that has been extrapolated to the whole of Scotland. The figure of 700,000 households includes much more than those who require a new home, as the member has said. The report recognises on page 15 that the conclusion should not be drawn that 693,000 new homes are required.
I meet representatives of Homes for Scotland regularly. The organisation is also a member of the housing to 2040 board. One of the key things that the board has been discussing is the use of data. I am sure that the report will come up and I will meet Homes for Scotland soon to discuss it. We will try to make progress on the recommendations and what the report says.
That answer is another indication of a minister with his head in the sand. The report is stark. In the absence of an effective land requirement assessment, Homes for Scotland has gone out and done the work and it estimates that a quarter of a million households need a home. Instead of building them, the Government is slashing our housing supply budget. Housing starts are falling off a cliff. The housing association sector has already passed judgment on the Scottish Government’s budget by saying that it is an “act of surrender” and that
“the cut is a terrible blow to efforts to tackle child and family poverty.”
I say to the minister that the first step in solving any problem is to acknowledge that there is one. How much more evidence, and how many more reports and pleas from organisations will it take for the Government to accept that there is a housing emergency of its own making and that serious action needs to be taken now?
There were a couple of things in there that I have already mentioned, so I will come back to an earlier answer. We commissioned research into housing insecurity and ending homelessness, which, as I said, will report in summer 2024.
I come back to the fact that we will still invest more than £500 million in affordable homes across Scotland. I have met most of Scotland’s local authorities to discuss the funding package and ways in which we can work with them in that regard. I will continue to do so in the next number of months.
Scottish Government figures have shown that the number of affordable homes being started decreased by 24 per cent in the quarter from July to September. No one in the housing sector now believes that the Scottish Government is on track to meet its housing targets. What review is being undertaken of the targets that the Government has set?
As Paul O’Kane has highlighted, they are really important in councils and housing associations meeting housing demands. Given the number of policies that have destabilised the housing sector—including the rent freeze, with many housing associations reporting that that has meant that they have had to completely look again at their funding packages for future development—what conversations are now happening with housing associations to ensure that projects take place?
There are two important points to remember; I regularly meet housing associations and local authorities and they have mentioned these to me. One is on the macroeconomic situation and where interest rates have sat and where construction inflation has been over the past number of years. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has said that the cost of borrowing is its biggest barrier. I hope that we will see a reduction in interest rates.
The other key issue is the reduction in the capital funding that we receive—a 10 per cent cut—which we have to manage. I urge Miles Briggs’s colleagues in the United Kingdom Government to consider that and to support us more. I think that he is really genuine about the point that he has made.
I think we all recognise that the ultimate solution to this problem must be to increase dramatically the supply of new house builds. What work is the Scottish Government doing to increase house building across all tenures through the use of modern methods of construction, including off-site manufacturing?
The Scottish Government supports delivery of homes across Scotland using a range of off-site methods, from timber-frame construction to fully modular development, and we will continue to do so through our affordable housing supply programme. We continue to support proven approaches that balance improvements with value—we have mentioned that before as part of rural housing action plans—and we work with the house building sector to deliver the homes that we need. I have met manufacturers of modular development in the sector and visited modular-build developments and will continue to do so.
Meanwhile, Edinburgh rent inflation is at 16 per cent and Glasgow rent inflation is at 14 per cent, which are the highest rates in the UK, including London. Why did the Scottish Government not learn the lesson of its own commissioned analysis on rent controls, which are contributing to homelessness? The report said that there would be an increase in homelessness. It also said that there would be a restriction in the supply of new housing. Why is the Government so tone-deaf to its own advisers?
I will come back to the specific point that Stephen Kerr mentioned. I am glad that he mentioned homelessness. A report was published last week by Crisis, which it commissioned Heriot-Watt University to work on. It said that the biggest impact on possible increases in homelessness has been the freezing of local housing allowance and the freezing of benefits. It mentioned those things as the biggest issue in the rise in homelessness. I wish that Stephen Kerr would take that up with his UK Government colleagues.
The housing bill will be introduced in due course. I engage with the private rented sector regularly on that. We need to build more homes, which I acknowledge. However, as I said, the biggest impact on homelessness is local housing allowance and the freezing of benefits. I hope that Stephen Kerr takes that back to his UK Government colleagues.
Air ais
Time for ReflectionAir adhart
Point of Order