– in the Scottish Parliament at on 9 November 2023.
Anas Sarwar
Labour
2. Bereaved families and their lawyers are watching these exchanges. I do not think that we should use Boris Johnson as our measure of success in Scotland.
It could not be clearer: the First Minister has lost control of his Government and he appears to have misled Parliament on more than one occasion. Let us focus on the substance, because this matters. The Covid pandemic was our country’s most difficult period in living memory. That is why learning the lessons and getting the answers are so important. We were promised full transparency and co-operation by this Government, but it has failed. WhatsApp messages are not the only evidence that the Government is withholding from the inquiry. The legal advice that the Government has provided has not been complete and, in some cases, it has been almost entirely redacted. The inquiry’s lawyer has said that that means that the inquiry is constrained from fully carrying out its function. Why is the First Minister’s Government hiding the legal advice and not co-operating with the inquiry?
Humza Yousaf
Scottish National Party
As Anas Sarwar knows, I cannot comment on legal advice. However, where there is the ability to hand over unredacted legal advice, I expect the Scottish Government to do so. We will do that with whatever information we can provide. After First Minister’s Question Time, I am more than happy to have the appropriate conversations with the law officers, but we have to ensure that legal privilege is maintained, where it is our legal responsibility to do so.
Anas Sarwar said that we are not complying. I whole-heartedly disagree with that. We have handed over 14,000 WhatsApp messages. I have handed over my WhatsApp messages in unredacted form—I have not decided what is relevant; I have handed over all my messages to the inquiry for it to decide what is relevant.
Anas Sarwar is absolutely right: the families who have been bereaved by Covid want answers. The 19,000 documents that we have handed over and the 14,000 WhatsApp messages that we have handed over, including the WhatsApp messages that I have handed over, show that this Government intends absolutely and unequivocally to fully co-operate with both the Scottish and United Kingdom public inquiries.
Anas Sarwar
Labour
The First Minister said that he is co-operating, but I am not sure that he understands the question that I asked him or knows the situation, because he clearly still has not read the transcript from the UK Covid inquiry.
The First Minister:
I have it right here.
Anas Sarwar
Labour
Well, he should read it.
The counsel to the inquiry has made it clear that the inquiry has asked twice—on 3 August and 14 August—for unredacted legal advice and has not received it. That does not seem to be a fight that the Covid inquiry is having with the UK Tory Government in relation to major decisions during the pandemic that, presumably, involved legal advice, such as those around lockdowns, discharge to care homes and “Do not resuscitate” notices. That is why the issue is important. Hiding that crucial evidence is an affront to every victim of Covid, their families and everyone who lived under lockdowns and closures.
In relation to the First Minister’s first answer, the Government has previously handed over legal advice in full to judicial inquiries, including the trams inquiry, the infected blood inquiry and the Scottish child abuse inquiry. The secrecy and evasion must stop. Will he hand over the legal advice in full to the Covid inquiry?
The First Minister:
Anas Sarwar’s question gets to the nub of the issue, which is that the Government has co-operated fully with inquiries in the past. Where we are able to release legal advice, we will absolutely do that, but Anas Sarwar has to accept, first, that a process has to be gone through and, secondly, that each bit of legal advice has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. He is absolutely right that we have provided legal advice to previous inquiries. Where we can do so in this inquiry, I absolutely expect every document, including those containing legal advice, to be handed over to the UK Covid inquiry and the Scottish Covid inquiry.
I go back to the central point. Quite rightly, the families who have been bereaved by Covid want to know whether we will co-operate. Nineteen thousand documents, and 14,000 messages—mainly WhatsApp messages—have been handed over.
My WhatsApp messages, as well as the messages of other ministers who, I know, have been public about the messages that they have handed over, have been submitted to the inquiry. We take absolutely seriously our responsibility to provide not just documents but, where possible, the legal advice. However, there are legal issues around legal privilege that have to be considered.
Anas Sarwar
Labour
It is clear from that answer that the First Minister is sinking, not swimming, and is completely and utterly out of his depth.
It is not me who is saying that the legal advice has been redacted and not handed over—it was the Covid inquiry that, on 3 August and 14 August, asked for the information that has still not been provided by this Government. WhatsApp messages have been deleted, legal advice has been redacted and there is a different story every day.
Even now, questions remain that the First Minister refuses to answer. He will not tell us how many people have failed to comply with the “Do not destroy” notices, even though the inquiry says that there is no confidentiality issue.
There is more. It has been reported that Scottish National Party ministers and special advisers use SNP and private email accounts to communicate. What is not clear is whether those emails have been handed over, in full, to the Covid inquiry.
Can the First Minister tell us, in the spirit of full transparency, whether any emails from SNP accounts have been handed to the Covid inquiry? If so, how many, and if not, why not?
I remind the First Minister again that this is about families who lost loved ones during Covid. Before he answers, I remind him that we need accurate answers the first time.
The First Minister:
I am not arguing with Anas Sarwar on the point that information has been redacted. I am saying to him that the reason why it has been redacted is—I can confirm—that there are issues around legal privilege, and therefore a discussion would have to take place with our law officers in relation to what could be unredacted.
Where we can send information unredacted, it is my full expectation, as the individual who leads the Government, that that information is provided in full, in unredacted form.
I will give Anas Sarwar an example of the way in which I lead by example in that regard. The WhatsApp messages that I have handed over have been handed over unredacted. The information that I have provided has been provided in unredacted form.
As for any other form of communication, including any other email address or informal or formal communication, it is my full expectation that that is handed over.
Of course, I do not have sight of individual ministers’ or witnesses’ statements. From a corporate position, I can confirm that any relevant information that we hold will be handed over.
Let me say once again, for the families who have been bereaved by Covid, that the Government will fully comply with both the UK inquiry and the Scottish public inquiry.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
Question Time is an opportunity for MPs and Members of the House of Lords to ask Government Ministers questions. These questions are asked in the Chamber itself and are known as Oral Questions. Members may also put down Written Questions. In the House of Commons, Question Time takes place for an hour on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays after Prayers. The different Government Departments answer questions according to a rota and the questions asked must relate to the responsibilities of the Government Department concerned. In the House of Lords up to four questions may be asked of the Government at the beginning of each day's business. They are known as 'starred questions' because they are marked with a star on the Order Paper. Questions may also be asked at the end of each day's business and these may include a short debate. They are known as 'unstarred questions' and are less frequent. Questions in both Houses must be written down in advance and put on the agenda and both Houses have methods for selecting the questions that will be asked. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P1 at the UK Parliament site.
The political party system in the English-speaking world evolved in the 17th century, during the fight over the ascension of James the Second to the Throne. James was a Catholic and a Stuart. Those who argued for Parliamentary supremacy were called Whigs, after a Scottish word whiggamore, meaning "horse-driver," applied to Protestant rebels. It was meant as an insult.
They were opposed by Tories, from the Irish word toraidhe (literally, "pursuer," but commonly applied to highwaymen and cow thieves). It was used — obviously derisively — to refer to those who supported the Crown.
By the mid 1700s, the words Tory and Whig were commonly used to describe two political groupings. Tories supported the Church of England, the Crown, and the country gentry, while Whigs supported the rights of religious dissent and the rising industrial bourgeoisie. In the 19th century, Whigs became Liberals; Tories became Conservatives.
