evidence to the uk covid—19 inquiry, it is amid scrutiny over messages exchanged by ministers and officials during the pandemic. before that the former first minister, nicola sturgeon�*s use of private party e—mails is also likely to be examined as herformer e—mails is also likely to be examined as her former chief of staff, liz lloyd gives evidence. let's go to our scotland correspondent lorna gordon. a busy day. we know humza yousaf will give evidence this afternoon. talk to us about liz lloyd and her relationship to the former first minister. this is the first _ to the former first minister. this is the first time _ to the former first minister. this is the first time we _ to the former first minister. ti 3 is the first time we will hear from a member of the scottish cabinet during the pandemic and the first time we will hear from liz lloyd, the chief of staff to nicola sturgeon. she was nicola sturgeon�*s

right hand woman during the pandemic and for many years prior to that. the inquiry is likely to examine what role she played in terms of guiding, in terms of helping nicola sturgeon, nicola sturgeon has been clear in a statement that was submitted to the inquiry that we have heard about from other witnesses, we haven't seen the statement ourselves, but other witnesses have spoken about nicola sturgeon saying that politicians made the decisions and advisors advised. but i think the inquiry will be keen to explore whether that was really the case. what role liz lloyd played? they know for instance that she made the decisions alongside nicola sturgeon on who would take to the podium sometimes during the daily press briefings. that may sound peripheral to the

main decision—making process. but if she played a role in those decisions, what role did she play in others? we know that nicola sturgeon also has become what is known as gold command meetings between her and her trusted advisors ahead of any cabinet meeting that would take place on the sunday or monday ahead of cabinet meetings, but usually took place on a tuesday. those so—called gold command meetings were not minuted and the inquiry lawyers may seek to question liz lloyd on whether she took part in those meetings and what was discussed at them, if she did. we have seen messages already submitted to the inquiry which showed that liz lloyd and nicola sturgeon had a very familiar language in their communications. you know, some people may say what is the importance of these informal

messages that were exchanged during the pandemic? and i think the question is, is that the inquiry is trying to get to the core of why decisions were made. they know what decisions were made. they know what decisions were made by government, but they're trying to understand how those decisions were reached, the process behind them, who took part, was it the scientists, did the cabinet have a role. was it advisors. they're trying to understand the process to that and hoping liz will play a role in explaining that.— hoping liz will play a role in ex-alainin that. �*, ., , ., explaining that. let's go straight into the inquiry _ explaining that. let's go straight into the inquiry that _ explaining that. let's go straight into the inquiry that is _ explaining that. let's go straight into the inquiry that is now- explaining that. let's go straight l into the inquiry that is now getting under way. you're commonly known as liz lloyd? yes. . , ., you're commonly known as liz lloyd? yes. . ,, ~' , you're commonly known as liz lloyd? yes. . ~' , , you're commonly known as liz lloyd? yes. . ~ , ,., yes. can you keep your voice up and seak yes. can you keep your voice up and speak slowly. _ yes. can you keep your voice up and speak slowly, because _ yes. can you keep your voice up and speak slowly, because there - yes. can you keep your voice up and speak slowly, because there is - yes. can you keep your voice up and speak slowly, because there is a - speak slowly, because there is a stenographer taking the evidence. if

any of my questions are unclear, please say so and i can repeat or rephrase. you've provided two statements to the inquiry. the first, and both these are dated 15th november 2023. the first statement is on screen. this is in0006. this is on screen. this is in0006. this is the statement that explains your role in the scottish government's response to the pandemic. i understand there was a correction that you wanted to make at paragraph 13. , , ., ., , that you wanted to make at paragraph 13. , ._ 13. yes, there is a fairly i hope obvious type — 13. yes, there is a fairly i hope obvious type graphical - 13. yes, there is a fairly i hope obvious type graphical error, l 13. yes, there is a fairly i hope obvious type graphical error, i | 13. yes, there is a fairly i hope - obvious type graphical error, i have used the 1 and 1 and it should be 19. ,, , . ., ., used the 1 and 1 and it should be 19. ,,,. ., ., ., used the 1 and 1 and it should be 19. sub'ect to that amendment, can ou 19. subject to that amendment, can you confirm — 19. subject to that amendment, can you confirm this _ 19. subject to that amendment, can you confirm this is _ 19. subject to that amendment, can you confirm this is your— 19. subject to that amendment, can you confirm this is your statement? i you confirm this is your statement? it is. �* , ., .

you confirm this is your statement? itis. �* ., ,., it is. are you, are the contents of this statement _ it is. are you, are the contents of this statement true _ it is. are you, are the contents of this statement true to _ it is. are you, are the contents of this statement true to the - it is. are you, are the contents of this statement true to the belief. this statement true to the belief of... true to the best of your knowledge and belief? of. .. true to the best of your knowledge and belief?- of... true to the best of your knowledge and belief? they are. there is also _ knowledge and belief? they are. there is also a _ knowledge and belief? they are. there is also a second _ knowledge and belief? they are. | there is also a second statement that you gave to the inquiry that is also dated 15th november 2023. this is im02711. this is a statement about the use and retention of informal communications such as whatsapp messages. can you confirm this is your statement? it messages. can you confirm this is your statement?— messages. can you confirm this is yourstatement? it is. are the your statement? it is. are the contents of — your statement? it is. are the contents of this _ your statement? it is. are the contents of this statement - your statement? it 3 are the contents of this statement true to your best knowledge and belief? timer;r your best knowledge and belief? they are. iwant your best knowledge and belief? they are- i want to — your best knowledge and belief? they are. i want to discuss _ your best knowledge and belief? they are. i want to discuss your _ are. i want to discuss your professional _ are. i want to discuss your professional background i are. i want to discuss your - professional background before we get to your role during the pandemic. you were employed as a special advisor to the scottish government from january 2012 to i believe 23rd march 2021. is that right? believe 23rd march 2021. is that riuht? . believe 23rd march 2021. is that right?- after _ believe 23rd march 2021. is that right?- after a _ believe 23rd march 2021. is that right? yes. after a short break you were back in _ right? yes. after a short break you were back in post _

right? yes after a short break you were back in post as a right? 1.65 after a short break you were back in post as a special advisor from august 21 to the 28th march 23, sthasht? is advisor from august 21 to the 28th march 23, sthasht?— advisor from august 21 to the 28th march 23, sthasht? is that correct? yes. you served _ march 23, sthasht? is that correct? yes. you served as _ march 23, sthasht? is that correct? yes. you served as the _ march 23, sthasht? is that correct? yes. you served as the chief- march 23, sthasht? is that correct? yes. you served as the chief of - yes. you served as the chief of staff to first — yes. you served as the chief of staff to first minister - yes. you served as the chief of staff to first minister nicola i staff to first minister nicola sturgeon from 15 to 23rd march 2021. yes. ., ., ., , yes. you returned to the scottish government _ yes. you returned to the scottish government as _ yes. you returned to the scottish government as we _ yes. you returned to the scottish government as we said _ yes. you returned to the scottish government as we said in - yes. you returned to the scottish government as we said in august i government as we said in august 2021, this time you were strategic and policy advisor to the first minister in the special advisory team. . �* . minister in the special advisory team. . �*, . minister in the special advisory team-_ you - minister in the special advisory - team._ you remained team. that's correct. you remained in that role — team. that's correct. you remained in that role until _ team. that's correct. you remained in that role until the _ team. that's correct. you remained in that role until the resignation - in that role until the resignation of nicola sturgeon as first minister in 2023 at which point you also chose to leave government. that's correct. chose to leave government. that's correct- you _ chose to leave government. that's correct. you now _ chose to leave government. that's correct. you now work _ chose to leave government. that's correct. you now work in - chose to leave government. that's correct. you now work in the - chose to leave government. that's i correct. you now work in the private sector? yes- — correct. you now work in the private sector? yes- i— correct. you now work in the private sector? yes. i want _ correct. you now work in the private sector? yes. i want to _ correct. you now work in the private sector? yes. i want to turn - correct. you now work in the private sector? yes. i want to turn to - correct. you now work in the private sector? yes. i want to turn to ask. sector? yes. i want to turn to ask ou sector? yes. i want to turn to ask you about — sector? yes. i want to turn to ask you about the — sector? yes. i want to turn to ask you about the role _ sector? yes. i want to turn to ask you about the role of _ sector? 1a; i want to turn to ask you about the role of special advisors, more generally, before we get to your involvement in the

pandemic. there is a special advisors code of conduct. there is, es. this advisors code of conduct. there is, yes. this describes _ advisors code of conduct. there is, yes. this describes the _ advisors code of conduct. there is, yes. this describes the role - advisors code of conduct. there is, yes. this describes the role of - advisors code of conduct. there is, yes. this describes the role of the | yes. this describes the role of the secial yes. this describes the role of the special advisor _ yes. this describes the role of the special advisor as _ yes. this describes the role of the special advisor as adding - yes. this describes the role of the special advisor as adding a - special advisor as adding a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to ministers. the code notes one of reasons for the role is to reinforce the political impartiality of the permanent civil service to that the political advice can come from the special advisors, as opposed to the permanent civil servants.— permanent civil servants. that's correct. professor— permanent civil servants. that's correct. professor paul - permanent civil servants. that's correct. professor paul cairneyl permanent civil servants. that's - correct. professor paul cairney gave evidence in — correct. professor paul cairney gave evidence in week _ correct. professor paul cairney gave evidence in week one _ correct. professor paul cairney gave evidence in week one to _ correct. professor paul cairney gave evidence in week one to the - correct. professor paul cairney gave evidence in week one to the inquiry | evidence in week one to the inquiry and in his report he said that special advise ors are appointed by the first minister personally and the first minister personally and the responsibility for the management of the special advisors rests with the first minister. is that your understanding? that is correct. i would _ that your understanding? that is correct. i would say _ that your understanding? that is correct. i would say the - that your understanding? that is i correct. i would say the day-to-day correct. i would say the day—to—day management of the special advisor team is delegated to the chief of

staff. . , ,, , staff. ultimately responsibility rests with the _ staff. ultimately responsibility rests with the first _ staff. ultimately responsibility rests with the first minister. l staff. ultimately responsibility| rests with the first minister. in your first statement you say, i will quote, special advisors are not decision—takers, but supported decision—ta kers, but supported ministerial decision—takers, but supported ministerial thinking and assist in the application, understanding of and communication of ministerial decisions. therefore am i correct and understand the role is not to take the editions themselves —— decisions themselves? take the editions themselves -- decisions themselves?— decisions themselves? that's correct. there _ decisions themselves? that's correct. there has _ decisions themselves? that's correct. there has to - decisions themselves? that's correct. there has to be - decisions themselves? that's correct. there has to be clear boundaries — correct. there has to be clear boundaries between - correct. there has to be clear boundaries between the - boundaries between the decision—makers such as the ministers and special advisors, as it is only the ministers who are elected and accountable to the public, is that correct?- elected and accountable to the public, is that correct? yes. a secial public, is that correct? yes. a special advisor _ public, is that correct? yes. a special advisor you're - public, is that correct? 13:3 a special advisor you're neither elected nor accountable to the public? elected nor accountable to the ublic? . . elected nor accountable to the ublic? . , , , . public? that is broadly correct. yes, i public? that is broadly correct. yes. i always— public? that is broadly correct. yes, i always felt _ public? that is broadly correct. yes, i always felt accountable l public? that is broadly correct. | yes, i always felt accountable to the public. yes, i always felt accountable to the public-— yes, i always felt accountable to the ublic. �* ., ., ., , ., the public. but not formally. your role is not — the public. but not formally. your role is not meant _ the public. but not formally. your role is not meant to _ the public. but not formally. your role is not meant to be _ role is not meant to be public—facing, unlike the

politicians. public-facing, unlike the politicians.— public-facing, unlike the politicians. public-facing, unlike the oliticians. . �*, . m politicians. that's correct. some s - ecial politicians. that's correct. some special advisors _ politicians. that's correct. some special advisors can _ politicians. that's correct. some special advisors can build - politicians. that's correct. some special advisors can build up - politicians. that's correct. some l special advisors can build up close relationships with their ministers, having worked with them over many years. is that correct yes. your relationship — years. is that correct yes. your relationship with _ years. is that correct 13:3 your relationship with nicola sturgeon was particularly closed, having worked as her chief of staff since 2015. , ., . ., , worked as her chief of staff since 2015. ,., . ., _ 2015. yes and certainly by the time ofthe 2015. yes and certainly by the time of the pandemic. _ 2015. yes and certainly by the time of the pandemic. is _ 2015. yes and certainly by the time of the pandemic. is it _ 2015. yes and certainly by the time of the pandemic. is it fair - 2015. yes and certainly by the time of the pandemic. is it fair to - 2015. yes and certainly by the time of the pandemic. is it fair to say i of the pandemic. is it fair to say ou war of the pandemic. is it fair to say you war close — of the pandemic. is it fair to say you war close confidante? - of the pandemic. is it fair to say you war close confidante? yes. | of the pandemic. is it fair to say - you war close confidante? yes. your first statement _ you war close confidante? yes. your first statement is _ you war close confidante? 133 your first statement is on the screen now, paragraph 29. page 8. here you say, my advice during this period was on the general tenor of the action being taken. i played a role on the first minister's behalf in asking clinicians and officials for more and better advice and raising questions on further actions and acted as a sounding board for the

first minister and others. can you, are you able to tell me what you meant by soft partner. the are you able to tell me what you meant by soft partner.— meant by soft partner. the first minister and _ meant by soft partner. the first minister and other _ meant by soft partner. the first minister and other ministers - meant by soft partner. the first i minister and other ministers would receive advice from scientists, they would be looking at broader information on legislative proposals, policy proposals and sometimes ministers need a place or a person where they can essentially think out loud without that being taken as their definitive view. my role and others frequently is to engage with them, to help them stress test ideas, to talk out what might be the consequences of a particular route of action, help them come to you know, are there other questions they should ask, do they have all the information they need? and to help them explore the advice and information before them. so in in the context of a particular decision the first minister or another minister needs to make,

there may be competing considerations and competing almost briefings coming from different interests, whether it be economic, whether it be scientific or medical and part of the role of special advisor is to be able to almost stress test the different perhaps conflicts advice so that the minister can make the decision? yes. in our minister can make the decision? yes. in your statement, _ minister can make the decision? yes. in your statement, i _ minister can make the decision? 133 in your statement, i won't take you to this particular part, i think you say it would be normal for you to attend decision—making meetings with the first minister. and this included meeting with the scottish cabinet, the resilience room, the gold meetings and the four nation calls with borisjohnson and michael gove. is that correct? calls with boris johnson and michael gove. is that correct?— calls with borisjohnson and michael gove. is that correct? yes. you were a particularly — gove. is that correct? 133 you were a particularly important part of the scottish government's response to the pandemic until at least march 2021. is that correct that the pandemic until at least march 2021. is that correc— 2021. is that correct that is for others to _ 2021. is that correct that is for others to judge. _ 2021. is that correct that is for others to judge, but _

2021. is that correct that is for others to judge, but i - 2021. is that correct that is for others to judge, but i was i 2021. is that correct that is for| others to judge, but i was there 2021. is that correct that is for i others to judge, but i was there and participating in the response. you were there _ participating in the response. you were there in _ participating in the response. you were there in almost all the important meetings and in the rooms where the decisions were being made? yes. ., ,., where the decisions were being made? yes. ., ., yes. you were the sounding board for the first minister _ yes. you were the sounding board for the first minister when _ yes. you were the sounding board for the first minister when it _ yes. you were the sounding board for the first minister when it came i yes. you were the sounding board for the first minister when it came to i the first minister when it came to stress testing the different advice that was being received? yes. there would be i that was being received? 133 there would be i think it is fair to say there would be few people within the scottish government that would perhaps be in the room for all the key meetings with the first minister during the course of the pandemic? during the course of the pandemic, it was common, there would be a few other people that you would see at most of meetings. the cabinet secretary for health would be present tshs, the deputy first minister was be present, sometimes remotely. there was a core group in

the lot of meetings. you remotely. there was a core group in the lot of meetings.— the lot of meetings. you were part ofthe the lot of meetings. you were part of the group? _ the lot of meetings. you were part of the group? yes. _ the lot of meetings. you were part of the group? yes. your _ the lot of meetings. you were part of the group? yes. your first i of the group? yes. your first statement. _ of the group? 133 your first statement, paragraph 6, you said, i would not say i advised on the adoption or not of specific npis. that was for the clinicians and officials, but i would have given views on the interpretation of the data and public mood and compliance of communications and where there was politics involved, such as securing the support of other parties or impacts on stake holders on that aspect. is it your position that you did not advise on the adoption or not of specific npis? i think when certain npis were on the table in that thought partner role, there would be perhaps conversations between myself and the first minister as to which one or exchanges as to which one to use. that could perhaps be considered

advice on the adoption that it was not, what i meant i decide on the adoption. not, what i meant i decide on the ado tion. ., not, what i meant i decide on the adotion. ., . , , ., adoption. you advised but not make the decisions. _ adoption. you advised but not make the decisions. or _ adoption. you advised but not make the decisions. or i _ adoption. you advised but not make the decisions. or i would _ adoption. you advised but not make the decisions. or i would say - adoption. you advised but not make the decisions. or i would say here . the decisions. or i would say here is our the decisions. or i would say here is your selected _ the decisions. or i would say here is your selected list _ the decisions. or i would say here is your selected list of _ the decisions. or i would say here is your selected list of n - the decisions. or i would say here is your selected list of n pichlt. i the decisions. or i would say here is your selected list of n pichlt. s | is your selected list of n pichlt. s they had come in from the chief medical officer and we would discuss what was on the table. flan medical officer and we would discuss what was on the table.— what was on the table. can we turn to some whatsapp _ what was on the table. can we turn to some whatsapp messages i what was on the table. can we turn i to some whatsapp messages between yourself and nicola sturgeon. i will come back to the circumstances of disclosure later. can we turn to 00287766. we are looking at page 9. by 00287766. we are looking at page 9. by way of context, the scottish government announced a rule that permitted 20 people at funerals and weddings and they kicked into force on 14th weddings and they kicked into force on111th september 2020. nicola sturgeon was due to announce new

restrictions to the scottish parliament on 22nd september 2020. in fact the usual briefing time was changed from 12.15 to 2.20 that afternoon. here we have an exchange of messages, shortly before nicola sturgeon was due to make the announcement and this exchange relates to a discussion about whether the rule should be changed. if we start by reading the top message. nicola sturgeon said, this on 22nd september at 12.09. shortly before she is due to make the announcement. we have not thought about weddings. you reply, i think as we only put them up, just leave them. you say, they aren't reduces churches etc as far as i know and i think, though we will check, that they were higher than us. they had

30, we have 20. you say they're going to 15 and 30 at funerals. i think we stay at 20. does the they in this conversation refer to the uk government?— in this conversation refer to the uk government? yes. nicola sturgeon in is in example — government? 133 nicola sturgeon in is in example tells you at around 10 past 12, the day she is due to make the announcement to the public, the usual time being 12.15, we see it was moved to 20.20. that she is not sure about what to do. you tell her to stay with 20 when the uk government has gone down from 30 to 15. that becomes the decision that day, because there is no change to the position of 20 as far as the inquiry is aware. is this not an example of a decision that was made at the last minute over what's app between you and nicola sturgeon. there are a number of aspects to this exchange. the decision, i didn't view this as the decision,

because the decision has been taken at cabinet to go to 20. through the normal processes. and where the first minister said we haven't thought about weddings, there significant thought by i think the communities and equalities team about what were the appropriate numbers of people at particular services. so that decision had been taken, that had gone through the proper process. and i gave my view that i don't think we need to remake that i don't think we need to remake that decision. i think the message underneath that decision. i think the message under neath that is, says that the statement has been forwarded to her i think that is the prime minister's statement and if she wanted to take further action she could have come back. i was having an exchange with the lead official to make sure i had the lead official to make sure i had the information correct and the information i gave the first minister was the right information. is the decision not to change the rules still a decision? rchgs i

think there has been a proactive position in cabinet that the position in cabinet that the position in cabinet that the position in scotland was that there would be 20. there is neither a confirmation, if the first minister had said i agree i would support your view that is a decision. i don't think it did change from memory until later on. this to my mind is me giving my advice, my thought in that thought partnership role that we stay at 20, if she had wanted to pursue it to consider it further, perhaps after receiving the statement, she may have, there would be exchanges in some other fashion. it wasn't any scientific briefing that you received that appears to have informed your view let's stake with 20, was there?— have informed your view let's stake with 20, was there? there would have been on the — with 20, was there? there would have been on the decision _ with 20, was there? there would have been on the decision had _ with 20, was there? there would have been on the decision had been - been on the decision had been recently, a day or two before, been

taken to set it to 20. i recently, a day or two before, been taken to set it to 20.— taken to set it to 20. i believe the decision to _ taken to set it to 20. i believe the decision to move _ taken to set it to 20. i believe the decision to move it _ taken to set it to 20. i believe the decision to move it down - taken to set it to 20. i believe the decision to move it down to i taken to set it to 20. i believe the decision to move it down to had . taken to set it to 20. i believe the i decision to move it down to had been taken around 20th september and the decision came on 20th september and from the documents disclosed, the inquiry has looked at all the documents between the 10th and 23rd september and the inquiry can see no advice being given about whether the numbers should remain at 20, or go up numbers should remain at 20, or go up or down. isis not an example of a decision being made on the hoof shortly before the first minister makes an announcement? i think advisin: makes an announcement? i think advising before _ makes an announcement? i think advising before the _ makes an announcement? i think advising before the statement i makes an announcement? i thinkl advising before the statement was about to be made, that a decision should be taken to change the limit without seeking scientific advice would have been the on the hoof

aspect. suggesting you stick on the decision was a more coherent decision. ~ .., . decision was a more coherent decision-— decision was a more coherent decision. ~ , ., ., decision. we can see that nicola sturgeon's _ decision. we can see that nicola sturgeon's first _ decision. we can see that nicola sturgeon's first whatsapp i decision. we can see that nicola sturgeon's first whatsapp to i decision. we can see that nicola l sturgeon's first whatsapp to you, decision. we can see that nicola i sturgeon's first whatsapp to you, we haven't thoughts about wed, that seems to suggest there wasn't much thought process had gone into the process until this discussion with you. i process until this discussion with ou. ~' . process until this discussion with ou. ~ , ., , process until this discussion with ou. ~' , . , . �* you. i think she means we haven't thou:ht you. i think she means we haven't thought about _ you. i think she means we haven't thought about changing _ you. i think she means we haven't thought about changing weddings | you. i think she means we haven't i thought about changing weddings in response to the uk government changing weddings. we had thought about weddings when the decision had been taken positively and proactively in cabinet to set the limit at 20. is proactively in cabinet to set the limit at 20-_ limit at 20. is it fair to say because — limit at 20. is it fair to say because nicola _ limit at 20. is it fair to say because nicola sturgeon l limit at 20. is it fair to say i because nicola sturgeon comes limit at 20. is it fair to say - because nicola sturgeon comes to limit at 20. is it fair to say _ because nicola sturgeon comes to you not being sure what to do, and ultimately as the inquiry has seen, that on this date there was no change too the rules, and you're the one that suggests that we stay at 20, are you the main driver of this decision? ., ., �* ~' 20, are you the main driver of this decision? ., ., �* ~ decision? no, i don't think. so the first minister _ decision? no, i don't think. so the first minister has _ decision? no, i don't think. so the first minister has a _ decision? no, i don't think. so the first minister has a strong - decision? no, i don't think. so the first minister has a strong enough | first minister has a strong enough mind that if she had felt that my

advice was not the right advice, she would have said so or acted in another capacity, asked for further advice, delayed the position on weddings. she would have acted on that. i am advising, i thought the correct information if you like the factual basis to give the advice, but the decision is hers. if factual basis to give the advice, but the decision is hers.- but the decision is hers. if the messages _ but the decision is hers. if the messages were _ but the decision is hers. if the messages were deleted i but the decision is hers. if the messages were deleted by i but the decision is hers. if the | messages were deleted by you but the decision is hers. if the messages were deleted by you and they haven't and that is why we have them, how would the inquiry and the public be able to understand how and why the decision was made at this time not to change the number of people that can attend funerals or weddings? 50. people that can attend funerals or weddinis? ., , people that can attend funerals or weddinis? . , ., people that can attend funerals or weddinis? .,, ., people that can attend funerals or weddinis? ., , ., ., weddings? so, as i have said, i have recollection — weddings? so, as i have said, i have recollection of _ weddings? so, as i have said, i have recollection of contacting _ weddings? so, as i have said, i have recollection of contacting i _ weddings? so, as i have said, i have recollection of contacting i think i recollection of contacting i think on teams the officials responsible for the sort of framework document to check my facts, to check what it was. they would be able to see the

decision that was made, that was the decision that was made, that was the decision to stay at 20 that had been made previously, through the process of advice and cabinet papers, that decision would be set out in great detail. the exchange i will have had with the official would have said the first minister is asking about weddings, what is the position? but the public, if is in message had been deleeted, the public and the inquiry would not know that the decision, the first minister as at 10. 12 that day wasn't sure whether to do and within a couple of hours she had reached a view that the numbers would not be changed and all that occurred within a very short time, involving a whatsapp discussion with you. that wouldn't be the sort of insight at the public or the inquiry would have if these messages had been deleted? there wouldn't be insight _ messages had been deleted? there wouldn't be insight into _ messages had been deleted? there wouldn't be insight into the - messages had been deleted? ii:: wouldn't be insight into the moment of oh should we think about it, the

reflection on the advice, is it the correct advice? but they would know why the decision on weddings was that there should be 20 people. the reflection is part of decision—making process, isn't it? it can be. i think in this it is... are the uk doing something that we should be doing? that will be i would expect to find in notes from officials providing this is what the uk is doing and considering in slow er time before the next update should we adopt any of this? but that split second of indecision would not necessary my be recorded elsewhere. d0 would not necessary my be recorded elsewhere. , ., ., ., , elsewhere. do you agree it would be an important — elsewhere. do you agree it would be an important part — elsewhere. do you agree it would be an important part of _ elsewhere. do you agree it would be an important part of specific - an important part of specific decision that was under contemplation, this exchange? i think if it had been, i don't want

too dispute it too strongly, i don't want to overstate the importance of this particular decision. there had been riv everiry week there was a review of the decisions and what action should be taken and they were donein action should be taken and they were done in meticulous fashion and there will be occasions where people have a moment of, oh is this right and might ask a special advisor, a expert or a clinical advisor, those moments are quite human. i wouldn't want to overstate the importance of this as to the proses that this stayed at 20. this as to the proses that this stayed at 20-_ this as to the proses that this stayed at 20.

they are making different viewpoints and that forms the full context tot that decision? yes and that forms the full context tot that decision?— that decision? yes there can be moments _ that decision? yes there can be moments where _ that decision? yes there can be moments where reassurance i that decision? yes there can be moments where reassurance is | moments where reassurance is required or... making sure that we essentially don't take informal decisions when formal decisions have been taken. had there been a decision to change, that would have been a decision based on no scientific advice alall taken in the space of 20 minutes. when you have a full proper process, this is referring back to the formal process. referring back to the formal rocess. ., . ., ' referring back to the formal rocess. ., ., ' , process. that occurred about 12 days before? yes- — process. that occurred about 12 days before? yes. can _ process. that occurred about 12 days before? yes. can we _ process. that occurred about 12 days before? yes. can we return - process. that occurred about 12 days before? yes. can we return to i process. that occurred about 12 days| before? yes. can we return to 28766 and our before? me; can we return to 28766 and your whatsapp messages. before? yes. can we return to 28766 and your whatsapp messages. can i before? yes. can we return to 28766 i and your whatsapp messages. can that be made a touch _ and your whatsapp messages. can that be made a touch bigger. _ and your whatsapp messages. can that be made a touch bigger. hopefully - be made a touch bigger. hopefully the will be made a touch bigger. hopefully they will come _ be made a touch bigger. hopefully they will come on _ be made a touch bigger. hopefully they will come on page _ be made a touch bigger. hopefully they will come on page bigger. - be made a touch bigger. hopefully} they will come on page bigger. we are looking at. does this help? yes.

hels me are looking at. does this help? yes. helps me as — are looking at. does this help? yes. helps me as well. _ are looking at. does this help? yes. helps me as well. i _ are looking at. does this help? yes. helps me as well. i think— are looking at. does this help? .;e:2 helps me as well. i think we can both read. this is a discussion between you and nicola sturgeon about the number of people who could meet indoors from march 2021. if we look at the first message from you, saying when you respond on cabinet paper injune, would we make it six and three indoors? it is more normal. what is the significance of the number six and three? i normal. what is the significance of the number six and three? i believe that would be _ the number six and three? i believe that would be six _ the number six and three? i believe that would be six people, _ the number six and three? i believe that would be six people, three - that would be six people, three households. find that would be six people, three households.— that would be six people, three households. �* _, ., households. and then if we, nicola sturueon's households. and then if we, nicola sturgeon's reply — households. and then if we, nicola sturgeon's reply is _ households. and then if we, nicola sturgeon's reply is that _ households. and then if we, nicola sturgeon's reply is that will - households. and then if we, nicola sturgeon's reply is that will be - sturgeon's reply is that will be better after four in three mid—may, you say indoors four, two, may, six two what i have. nicola sturgeon saysis two what i have. nicola sturgeon says is that indoors in pubs etc? thought we were waiting until may for indoor households. you say we appear to be waiting untiljune for indoors at hope. you say in pubs it is four two in april and six two in

june and we allow you to meet in your own home. cabinet paper doesn't run tojune, but my mock graphics do. nicola sturgeon says we should bring indoor houses to mid—may. you say can you make that your feedback, or do you want me to do it. she says i will do it. so if we... pause there. in is in exchange you are pushing for or maybe advising that there is a change of the rules on there is a change of the rules on the amount of people who can socialise indoors is that right? so socialise indoors is that right? sr this refers to a proposal. the numbers four, two, six two, i'm not just pulling those out of air. this is a proposal in a draft of a cabinet paper. and in a draft set of communications material. that i'm looking at and suggesting to the first minister that i don't think the final part of the proposal,

which issing is not in if cap, cabinet paper doesn't work. your reasonin: cabinet paper doesn't work. your reasoning seems _ cabinet paper doesn't work. your reasoning seems to _ cabinet paper doesn't work. your reasoning seems to be _ cabinet paper doesn't work. your reasoning seems to be it - cabinet paper doesn't work. your reasoning seems to be it is much more normal, can you explain that? sometimes when you look at the advice, you have to think through what will this mean for people living flair lives in practice? and how might people want to function, what would people consider a return to normality if that is what you're trying to do. although we had previously had six two regulations i think the year before, i think what i was reflecting on was six three possibly enabled more of families to gather in an easier way. i possibly enabled more of families to gather in an easier way.— gather in an easier way. i think you acce t, gather in an easier way. i think you accept. or— gather in an easier way. i think you accept, or would _ gather in an easier way. i think you accept, or would you _ gather in an easier way. i think you accept, or would you accept - gather in an easier way. i think you accept, or would you accept that i accept, or would you accept that just, the explanation isjust more normal isn't very scientific is it? it is not, i agree, it is not hugely scientific. but one of the things

that i felt was necessary in this and was not a function unique to me is to think when you have a set of regulations, they're not proposed... it often felt they were proposed in the abstract without considering the way people function in their real life and particularly around how people got to react, you were seeking to balance caution and protection from the virus, with the kind of normality that might be good for people in a more societal sense. longwell group start a consistent theme, the scientific and medical advice that you were receiving often seemed in the abstract, devoid of the real world and how people lived? i do not want to make it seem like the people giving the job or abstract and the void of understanding but it was theirjob

to provide appropriate regulation on a very strict basis, it was not theirjob a very strict basis, it was not their job to a very strict basis, it was not theirjob to consider what this means for people's mental health, the family relationship. they were there to consider that would keep there to consider that would keep the r number to its lowest level but there were other people who would feed in points about well actually, if you could make a slight tweak at tallaght, could that make it better for people societally or in a mental health perspective on what would be the impact, would that have serious consequences or is that mlc have space to make? it consequences or is that mlc have space to make?— consequences or is that mlc have space to make? it wasn't straight to sadist scottish _ space to make? it wasn't straight to sadist scottish government - space to make? it wasn't straight to sadist scottish government was - sadist scottish government was following the science, the science had a role to play but you and other special advisers and other stakeholders would bring into bed the decision that wouldn't necessarily be science —based? the necessarily be science -based? the science necessarily be science —based? ii9 science underpinned necessarily be science —based? i“i9: science underpinned everything necessarily be science —based? ii9 science underpinned everything and if you suggest changes, if ministers

wanted to do something different though not