7well ha’xre been assurance. and i, as well have been the case on — assurance. and i, as well have been the case on many — assurance. and i, as well have been the case on many occasions - assurance. and i, as well have been the case on many occasions over- assurance. and i, as well have been| the case on many occasions over the course of notjust the covid pandemic but in my many years in politics, answering questions, when you are answering questions you are trying to answer the substance of the question and when you look back at the literal terms of the answer, it can be put to you in that way. i accept that and apologise if that answer was this not as clear, but i also want to be very clear and give the inquiry a personal assurance that i am certain that the inquiry has at its disposal anything and everything germane to my decision—making during the processes and the time period of the pandemic and the time period of the pandemic and the time period of the pandemic and the factors underpinning those decisions. that has always been important to me and it remains important to me and it remains important to me and it remains important to me. but more

importantly than that, it's essential to the scrutiny of the decisions that i will carry the impact of these decisions with me forever and i want to make sure that those who come after me in politics have the benefit of the learning, the things that my government did right and the things my government did that were not right, with hindsight that we wish we had done differently. i cannot say strongly enough how important that is to me. these decisions were of a magnitude beyond what i had ever experienced and that is true of decision—makers everywhere and the impact of them. i think about that literally every day and i want this inquiry and the scottish inquiry to scrutinise those decisions so we can learn and future governments can learn appropriate

lessons from them. in governments can learn appropriate lessons from them.— governments can learn appropriate lessons from them. in case there is an doubt lessons from them. in case there is any doubt on _ lessons from them. in case there is any doubt on the _ lessons from them. in case there is any doubt on the matter, _ lessons from them. in case there is any doubt on the matter, when - lessons from them. in case there is any doubt on the matter, when i i any doubt on the matter, when i delivered — any doubt on the matter, when i delivered the opening statement of this module we were keen to try to make _ this module we were keen to try to make clear— this module we were keen to try to make clear that our position with regard _ make clear that our position with regard to — make clear that our position with regard to those decisions was that they were — regard to those decisions was that they were extremely difficult decisions and i think there can be no doubt — decisions and i think there can be no doubt about that. as regards your production— no doubt about that. as regards your production of documents, however, you did _ production of documents, however, you did not — production of documents, however, you did not produce to us any whatsapps messages or any other informal— whatsapps messages or any other informal messages with your first statement dated the 6th of november 2023 despite request you do so. for the 2023 despite request you do so. the reasons i 2023 despite request you do so. hr?" the reasons i have set out i did not hold whatsapps messages or text messages at that point and as i have said, because i had gone through a process of making sure anything of relevance which would have been very, very limited, i could assure myself would be available through the public record and scottish government record. when i was asked to double—check, when the inquiry

sent another request for a statement, i discovered isolated text message with one individual, the now deputy first minister of northern ireland, which i provided to the inquiry and also found, and againi to the inquiry and also found, and again i apologise to the inquiry because i cannot at the time thought to look in this place because it would not have been a normal means of communication, but when i was racking my brains to see where i could find anything that might be relevant, i looked out the dm function of twitter and found there some messages with professor david should and limited messages with professorjason leitch, which i then provided to the inquiry. i also sought and was provided through the government with messages between me and lloyd and humza yousaf which i was aware the inquiry would have

from them but nevertheless because i withheld them it passed them to the inquiry. there is one exchange in the twitter dm messages with jason leitch that i think gives an indication of my approach to informal messaging, where he is raising something with me. i think it's the last message in this exchange. and i interns say to him, if you want to talk about matters like this, come and see me properly. this is not the place do it. that was my attitude to that kind of messaging. was my attitude to that kind of messaging-— was my attitude to that kind of messauuin. ,, ., ., ,, ., ., , messaging. should we take that to be an instruction — messaging. should we take that to be an instruction to _ messaging. should we take that to be an instruction to professor— messaging. should we take that to be an instruction to professorjason - an instruction to professorjason leitch, _ an instruction to professorjason leitch, if— an instruction to professorjason leitch, if you wanted to carry out such _ leitch, if you wanted to carry out such conversations where he was discussing — such conversations where he was discussing important matters related to the _ discussing important matters related to the pandemic with you, you wanted to the pandemic with you, you wanted to be clear— to the pandemic with you, you wanted to be clear with him that that was a matter— to be clear with him that that was a matter not— to be clear with him that that was a matter not appropriate for these media, — matter not appropriate for these media, it — matter not appropriate for these media, it should be done more formally. — media, it should be done more formally, in person and discussions were _ formally, in person and discussions were your— formally, in person and discussions were your practice.— were your practice. absolutely. i made it clear _

were your practice. absolutely. i made it clear to _ were your practice. absolutely. i made it clear to him _ were your practice. absolutely. i made it clear to him that - were your practice. absolutely. i made it clear to him that it - were your practice. absolutely. i made it clear to him that it was. were your practice. absolutely. i i made it clear to him that it was my practice. the exchange was related to hospital capacity and ventilation facilities in hospitals at a relatively early stage of the pandemic. relatively early stage of the pandemic— relatively early stage of the andemic. ., ,,., .,. relatively early stage of the andemic. ., ,, ., pandemic. professor leach we know conducted extensive _ pandemic. professor leach we know conducted extensive discussions - conducted extensive discussions related — conducted extensive discussions related to important decisions in the pandemic with others including the pandemic with others including the current first minister. as the pandemic with others including the current first minister.- the current first minister. as you will appreciate — the current first minister. as you will appreciate i _ the current first minister. as you will appreciate i have _ the current first minister. as you will appreciate i have only - the current first minister. as you will appreciate i have only seen l will appreciate i have only seen exchanges that have been explored at previous evidence sessions so i can't talk in any way about the totality of those messages. i have not seen to the best of my knowledge anything that would suggest he was engaging in decision—making. there are exchanges, conversational exchanges. many of these exchanges that i have seen from other governments as well i think on whatsapp would be the kind of

exchange that, had people not been working remotely and been in the same building as i actually was with key advisers throughout the pandemic, these are the kind of conversations that would have happened verbally, face—to—face, and end up being translated to whatsapp because of the nature of people's working environments.— because of the nature of people's working environments. given the fact ou were working environments. given the fact you were in — working environments. given the fact you were in st— working environments. given the fact you were in st andrew's _ working environments. given the fact you were in st andrew's house - working environments. given the fact you were in st andrew's house quite | you were in st andrew's house quite a lot of— you were in st andrew's house quite a lot of the _ you were in st andrew's house quite a lot of the time, as we heard from ms freeman, as she was, there were a large _ ms freeman, as she was, there were a large number— ms freeman, as she was, there were a large number of those verbal conversations between you and others, — conversations between you and others, like ms freeman, who were based _ others, like ms freeman, who were based predominantly there during the pandemic _ based predominantly there during the pandemic. is that right? yes. based predominantly there during the pandemic. is that right?— pandemic. is that right? yes. the ma'ori pandemic. is that right? yes. the majority of _ pandemic. is that right? yes. the majority of the — pandemic. is that right? yes. the majority of the conversations - pandemic. is that right? yes. the majority of the conversations i - majority of the conversations i would be having, certainly with ms freeman and the chief medical officer at the time, and other senior advisers would be fa ce—to —fa ce senior advisers would be face—to—face in st andrew's house. ari was in st andrew's house from early in the morning to late at night almost every day for an

extended period of time as were these other individuals. for that period, seven days a week. istature these other individuals. for that period, seven days a week. were the salient points — period, seven days a week. were the salient points of— period, seven days a week. were the salient points of those _ period, seven days a week. were the salient points of those verbal - salient points of those verbal discussions committed to public record? — discussions committed to public record? , . , discussions committed to public record? , ., , , ., . record? yes, at my private office,, not my entire _ record? yes, at my private office,, not my entire private _ record? yes, at my private office,, not my entire private office, - record? yes, at my private office,, not my entire private office, but i not my entire private office, but key individuals in my private office, there would be a rota and there would be someone in my private office with me, so the salient points would be recorded as appropriate and fed through the system. i think perhaps, if i may, there are two further points to be made there. if i as first minister are having a discussion with anybody that then requires action to be taken, if that's not inputted into the system, action wouldn't be taken. that's how conversations turn into actions that are necessary. the second point is, just to reflect,

particularly in their very early stages of the pandemic and the early stages of the pandemic and the early stages of, certainly through march and into april 2020, there was a frenetic pace of decision—making and we were taking decisions at very short notice. the situation was changing several times a day. we were all working at pace. i would have conversations in the morning that by the afternoon the situation had changed and so the nature of those conversations would be different. three or four years on, it is difficult sometimes to appreciate just how frenetic the pace of activity was at that time. the fact you are working at pace, though. — the fact you are working at pace, though, doesn't alter the obligation to make _

though, doesn't alter the obligation to make sure salient points of conversations and messaging are run public— conversations and messaging are run public record. conversations and messaging are run public record-— public record. absolutely, but i remember _ public record. absolutely, but i remember on _ public record. absolutely, but i remember on the _ public record. absolutely, but i remember on the 23rd - public record. absolutely, but i remember on the 23rd of- public record. absolutely, but i | remember on the 23rd of march public record. absolutely, but i - remember on the 23rd of march 2020, the day we entered what became known as lockdown, having conversations, because the advice that was coming at that point was that we required very strict measures to suppress the virus at that stage, measures that had been introduced previously weren't bringing the r number down sufficiently. i run the having conversations with the chief medical officer at the time, jeane freeman, and then we have course went into cobra and they were formalised through the cobra meeting. i suppose what i'm saying is that the ways in which these conversations would become decisions and then recorded was perhaps different in the environment we were in at that point than would be the case in normal times and normal government

business. ~ . , , times and normal government business. ~ ., , , business. whereas with these verbal conversations _ business. whereas with these verbal conversations it _ business. whereas with these verbal conversations it wouldn't _ business. whereas with these verbal conversations it wouldn't be - conversations it wouldn't be possible _ conversations it wouldn't be possible for us to work out whether the salient — possible for us to work out whether the salient points of those had been transcribed to the corporate record, because _ transcribed to the corporate record, because looking at the corporate record _ because looking at the corporate record we — because looking at the corporate record we don't know what the conversations were. in contradiction we do _ conversations were. in contradiction we do now— conversations were. in contradiction we do now have some messages so can compare _ we do now have some messages so can compare the _ we do now have some messages so can compare the corporate record to those _ compare the corporate record to those messages and can work out if the salient — those messages and can work out if the salient points have been transcribed. | the salient points have been transcribed.— the salient points have been transcribed. ., , transcribed. i am sure you can take messaues transcribed. i am sure you can take messages and _ transcribed. i am sure you can take messages and go _ transcribed. i am sure you can take messages and go to _ transcribed. i am sure you can take messages and go to the _ transcribed. i am sure you can take messages and go to the corporate l messages and go to the corporate record, go to the public statements made at the time and see all of that reflected. it may not be the case that in every instance you will see conversations between, on this date and the reference on the corporate record absolutely, but i am absolutely certain the salient points we were discussing then would be reflected on the corporate and indeed on the public record. these were, by their very nature, these

were, by their very nature, these were decisions that could not be kept secret, even if we had wanted to, which we didn't, because these were decisions that we are asking the public to do things, or more regularly not to do things, that had to be communicated. they were also decisions that had very significant impacts for the private sector, for the public sector, for society as a whole. they had to be recorded in a way that they could be actioned and communicated clearly, quickly and effectively. communicated clearly, quickly and effectivel . ., ., ,, , ., effectively. that may apply to the decisions themselves, _ effectively. that may apply to the decisions themselves, they - effectively. that may apply to the i decisions themselves, they couldn't be kept _ decisions themselves, they couldn't be kept secret because ultimately the public found out out about the restrictions on everything but ultimately the discussions relating to the _ ultimately the discussions relating to the decisions and how they were rich could _ to the decisions and how they were rich could have been kept secret. again, _ rich could have been kept secret. again, i— rich could have been kept secret. again, i would like to give an assurance to the inquiry that contrary to there being any desire on the part of me or my government to keep things secret, i would suggest that the opposite was the case during the pandemic. we went to

great lengths to communicate not just the decisions. i took a view very early on in the pandemic, it is for others tojudge very early on in the pandemic, it is for others to judge whether it is right or wrong, that if we were to achieve a level of compliance with the restrictions that we were placing the country under, then it was important that the public didn't just know what we were asking them to do, but why we were asking them to do, but why we were asking them to do, but why we were asking them to do it and what the reasoning was that had taken us to those decisions. and that's what i sought to do. sometimes effectively, perhaps sometimes not so effectively, on a daily basis. so we were not having discussions that weren't then being communicated to the public openly. in the nature of notjust government but life generally, it is not possible to record, and i'm not even sure it's

desirable to good governance, if i may say that, to record every single word that is altered in a conversation in government. there needs to be in government, and i think this is in the interests of good government, in the interests of ministers and advisers, to have an open, thinking out loud discussion before getting to the point of a proposal, let alone a decision. but salient points about why we were taking decisions and what those decisions were, absolutely, to go back to the question you initially put to me, absolutely i firmly am of the view that they would all be discernible from the corporate government record and indeed over and above that the public record. you subsequently learned from your second _ you subsequently learned from your second statement that you had used means— second statement that you had used means of— second statement that you had used means of various informal means of

communication for some messaging with humza yousaf, ms lloyd, mr swinney. — with humza yousaf, ms lloyd, mr swinney, ms freeman, doctor calderwood, mr smith, professor leitch, _ calderwood, mr smith, professor leitch, ken thomson, leslie evans, professor— leitch, ken thomson, leslie evans, professor devi sridhar, the first minister— professor devi sridhar, the first minister of wales mark drakeford and former— minister of wales mark drakeford and former deputy first minister of northern— former deputy first minister of northern ireland michelle o'neill. is northern ireland michelle o'neill. is that _ northern ireland michelle o'neill. is that correct?— northern ireland michelle o'neill. is that correct? yes. you produce no messaues is that correct? yes. you produce no messages with _ is that correct? 13:3 you produce no messages with these individuals is that correct? 133 you produce no messages with these individuals in your first _ messages with these individuals in your first statement, is that correct _ your first statement, is that correct chris neal yes, but i said in the _ correct chris neal yes, but i said in the statement, those messages would _ in the statement, those messages would have been extremely limited. if i would have been extremely limited. if i take _ would have been extremely limited. if i take john swinney for example, if i takejohn swinney for example, it has never been a practice, not just during the pandemic, but generally, to text, i don't think i have ever sent to whatsapp tojohn swinney and certainly if i have it would be the exception, absolutely the exception, but text messages will be very occasional and the nature of the text messages i would have a john swinney would be, are you free to speak, or can i pop in

to see you. it's never been in the nature of it. with some of the others, catherine calderwood was one of those in st andrew's house with me, the number of people in the scottish government, however many thousands of people working in the scottish comic that i hold a mobile phone numberfour is scottish comic that i hold a mobile phone number four is extremely limited. it was not by method of communication with mark drakeford and michelle o'neill, these are discussions with other government leaders that would have been recorded through the normal systems. so i again want to be very clear that it was not my practice to not just not to take decisions through informal messaging but have substantial, or lengthy or detailed discussions about government decisions through these means. it's not my style, is not my practice, it's never been my practice. not least because i don't think it is a good or effective or helpful way of

reaching decisions, notjust taking decisions, but it's not a helpful process in reaching decisions either.. ~ :, h ,, process in reaching decisions either.. :, x ,, ,, either.. whatsapp messages between ourself, either.. whatsapp messages between yourself. humza _ either.. whatsapp messages between yourself, humza yousaf— either.. whatsapp messages between yourself, humza yousaf and _ either.. whatsapp messages between yourself, humza yousaf and miss - yourself, humza yousaf and miss lloyd _ yourself, humza yousaf and miss lloyd were produced by you and your second _ lloyd were produced by you and your second statement. where did you get them? _ second statement. where did you get them? , , :, :, them? they were provided to me throuuh them? they were provided to me through the _ them? they were provided to me through the scottish _ them? they were provided to me| through the scottish government. them? they were provided to me - through the scottish government. you do obviously didn't have those on your own — do obviously didn't have those on your own devices because you deleted them _ your own devices because you deleted them i— your own devices because you deleted them. �* :, them. i didn't retain them in line with the procedure _ them. i didn't retain them in line with the procedure i _ them. i didn't retain them in line with the procedure i have - them. i didn't retain them in line | with the procedure i have already talked about. pare with the procedure i have already talked about.— talked about. are you creating a distinction _ talked about. are you creating a distinction between _ talked about. are you creating a distinction between deletion - talked about. are you creating a . distinction between deletion dotted but you _ distinction between deletion dotted but you had deleted them, how do not trust in _ but you had deleted them, how do not trust in yellow deletion, i think, forgive — trust in yellow deletion, i think, forgive me, it sounds as if there was a _ forgive me, it sounds as if there was a not — forgive me, it sounds as if there was a no :, forgive me, it sounds as if there wasano was a not bothering to check whether information was _ was a not bothering to check whether information was being _ was a not bothering to check whether information was being retained. - was a not bothering to check whether information was being retained. i - information was being retained. i was very thorough, notjust in the pandemic but in working government to ensure things were appropriately recorded, but in line with the advice i had already been given since my first day in government, probably, was not to retain conversations like that on a phone that could be lost or stolen and

therefore not secure. but that could be lost or stolen and therefore not secure.— that could be lost or stolen and therefore not secure. but did you delete them? _ therefore not secure. but did you delete them? yes. _ therefore not secure. but did you delete them? yes. and - therefore not secure. but did you delete them? yes. and as - therefore not secure. but did you delete them? yes. and as far - therefore not secure. but did you delete them? yes. and as far as| therefore not secure. but did you i delete them? yes. and as far as the other messages _ delete them? 133 and as far as the other messages are concerned that you couldn't produce yourself between _ you couldn't produce yourself between you and all these others, you deleted all of those as well? in the you deleted all of those as well? the manner you deleted all of those as well? in the manner i have, and after the process i have set out, yes. share the mannerl have, and after the process i have set out, yes. are you also set produced _ process i have set out, yes. are you also set produced some _ process i have set out, yes. are you also set produced some direct - also set produced some direct twitter— also set produced some direct twitter messages you mentioned between — twitter messages you mentioned between professor leitch and professor devi sridhar, who also produced — professor devi sridhar, who also produced those messages slightly later than you in december. did you have discussions with her about the production— have discussions with her about the production of those messages? | have discussions with her about the production of those messages? i let her know i have _ production of those messages? il3t her know i have found messages and will provide them to the inquiry. there was contact between you in relation _ there was contact between you in relation to— there was contact between you in relation to those messages. as a courtesy to _ relation to those messages. as a courtesy to let — relation to those messages. as a courtesy to let her _ relation to those messages. as a courtesy to let her know, - relation to those messages. 33 a courtesy to let her know, yes. relation to those messages. as a i courtesy to let her know, yes. could i have a look. _ courtesy to let her know, yes. could i have a look, please _ courtesy to let her know, yes. could i have a look, please that _ courtesy to let her know, yes. could i have a look, please that in - courtesy to let her know, yes. could i have a look, please that in 0, - i have a look, please that in 0, 000. _ i have a look, please that in 0, 000, 287766? we are both being

admonished for speaking too quickly for the _ admonished for speaking too quickly for the stenographer. if you can both— for the stenographer. if you can both try— for the stenographer. if you can both try to— for the stenographer. if you can both try to speak a little more slowly. — both try to speak a little more slowly, that would be appreciated. these _ slowly, that would be appreciated. these are — slowly, that would be appreciated. these are some extracts from messages between yourself and liz lloyd _ messages between yourself and liz lloyd. starting with the 27th of october — lloyd. starting with the 27th of october 2020 at 7.10 stopped reading through. _ october 2020 at 7.10 stopped reading through. it _ october 2020 at 7.10 stopped reading through, it says, i'm having a bit of a crisis. — through, it says, i'm having a bit of a crisis, this is you speaking. i'm of a crisis, this is you speaking. i'm having _ of a crisis, this is you speaking. i'm having a _ of a crisis, this is you speaking. i'm having a bit of a crisis in decision—making and hospitality, not to mention _ decision—making and hospitality, not to mention i — decision—making and hospitality, not to mention i haven't slept. the public— to mention i haven't slept. the public health argument says to stick with 6pm. _ public health argument says to stick with 6pm, n o, public health argument says to stick with 6pm, n 0, no alcohol for level three _ with 6pm, n 0, no alcohol for level three was— with 6pm, n 0, no alcohol for level three was that i suspect the industry— three was that i suspect the industry could go mad and i worry we could _ industry could go mad and i worry we could derail— industry could go mad and i worry we could derail the debate. i suspect that won't— could derail the debate. i suspect that won't happen. we can commit to listening _ that won't happen. we can commit to listening and changing if necessary. liz lloyd _ listening and changing if necessary. liz lloyd replies, my instinct is 6pm. — liz lloyd replies, my instinct is 6pm, that's the same as the central belt now— 6pm, that's the same as the central belt now but some more places open for that— belt now but some more places open for that they have offered further mitigation so we work with them on delivering _ mitigation so we work with them on delivering the extra mitigations and

review— delivering the extra mitigations and review at— delivering the extra mitigations and review at that point. she then follows — review at that point. she then follows up, the only alternative would — follows up, the only alternative would be — follows up, the only alternative would be 8pm, but no alcohol, and restaurants— would be 8pm, but no alcohol, and restaurants would like you for that! you say _ restaurants would like you for that! you say it's — restaurants would like you for that! you say it's the same as non—central belt places— you say it's the same as non—central belt places opening but only for food, _ belt places opening but only for food, non—alcohol. hpn would be better _ food, non—alcohol. hpn would be better i— food, non—alcohol. hpn would be better. i guess but not sure we can make _ better. i guess but not sure we can make much— better. i guess but not sure we can make much of a public health argument for 8pm, alcohol at level two. argument for 8pm, alcohol at level two and _ argument for 8pm, alcohol at level two. and 8pm, no alcohol at level three _ two. and 8pm, no alcohol at level three was— two. and 8pm, no alcohol at level three was up this lloyd replies, that's— three was up this lloyd replies, that's why— three was up this lloyd replies, that's why would stick with 6pm but if you _ that's why would stick with 6pm but if you want— that's why would stick with 6pm but if you want to compromise it would be about— if you want to compromise it would be about giving people regulated places _ be about giving people regulated places to be the winter rather than unregulated homes. but no alcohol because _ unregulated homes. but no alcohol because it — unregulated homes. but no alcohol because it changes behaviour. the difference — because it changes behaviour. the difference from now would basically be it is _ difference from now would basically be it is colder and darker so people will be _ be it is colder and darker so people will be less— be it is colder and darker so people will be less likely to be outside. you say, — will be less likely to be outside. you say, ok, we should probably stick— you say, ok, we should probably stick with— you say, ok, we should probably stick with six. it's all so random but l _ stick with six. it's all so random but l think— stick with six. it's all so random but i think we need to be prepared for a _ but i think we need to be prepared for a bit _ but i think we need to be prepared for a bit of— but i think we need to be prepared for a bit of a backlash. i have also gueried _ for a bit of a backlash. i have also queried whether we really need the last entry— queried whether we really need the last entry times and if we do whether— last entry times and if we do whether we should give on 9.30, 1030 _ whether we should give on 9.30, 1030 as— whether we should give on 9.30, 1030 as it — whether we should give on 9.30, 10.30 as it stands. there is nothing

to say— 10.30 as it stands. there is nothing to say we _ 10.30 as it stands. there is nothing to say we haven't listened to the industry — to say we haven't listened to the industry. this lloyd replies that level— industry. this lloyd replies that level to — industry. this lloyd replies that level to 8pm is listening to them. she follows up, allowing restaurants and pubs _ she follows up, allowing restaurants and pubs to stay open, you say, i propose — and pubs to stay open, you say, i propose. she says there is quite a lot recently. they will still be grumpy — lot recently. they will still be grumpy but there it is, i think it is meant — grumpy but there it is, i think it is meant to— grumpy but there it is, i think it is meant to say. this is an example of a messaging exchange that would be relevant to someone who would be interested _ be relevant to someone who would be interested in knowing how decisions interested in knowing how decisions in this— interested in knowing how decisions in this regard have been arrived at. yes, _ in this regard have been arrived at. yes. but _ in this regard have been arrived at. yes. but in — in this regard have been arrived at. yes, but in many respects i think this exchange illustrates the answers i have been giving you. for context and i will be corrected if i am wrong, i think this is 7.20 in the morning in october 2020. i was in the car going to a cabinet meeting from glasgow. these were decisions cabinet was about to arrive at and i am simply talking

about the things i would then go into cabinet and i would talk about and would be recorded in cabinet minutes and the decisions we took. i was probably later that day standing on a public platform talking about some of the decisions we had faced, the options we had and why we had arrived at the decision we have arrived at the decision we have arrived at. i can't see it right now, there is a reference to, i have queried, that's a reference, something i had obviously fared in as a question to the advisers who would have been preparing the cabinet minute papers. i look at this and i don't consider that there is anything in that that wouldn't be reflected through the decision—making and the evidence of the decision—making of the government and undoubtedly hospitality, and the impact on

hospitality, and the impact on hospitality, the different time limits, that was all very, very much to the fore in public discussion at the time and i am certain i would have been talking openly about some of these choices and the fine balances of the very difficult decisions we were having to take. will we find in the corporate record or some _ will we find in the corporate record or some other record that your position— or some other record that your position was, we should probably stick— position was, we should probably stick with— position was, we should probably stick with six. it is also random? the message exchange starts with, and again i said earlier on, the reason i don't think whatsapp messages should be used to have substantial government discussions is because we can look at them almost four years later and they are open to different interpretations. that message exchange you read out started with me perhaps, this is the kind of thing i prefer not to be on the public record, a crisis of decision—making is perhaps not what i wanted people to know, and that i hadn't slept. at the 27th of october

2020, i wouldn't have had a day off since much earlier that year, before march, and had been working, and i am not saying that for simply, that was myjob and duty. there were moments in that where the decisions we were taking felt almost impossible, whatever we did we would cause difficulty and harm to somebody somewhere. and so a phrase like, it's all so random, that probably simply reflects how i felt at 7.20 that morning when i hadn't had much sleep. by the time i got to cabinet i am sure i would have collected my thoughts and we would have had a proper discussion and reached a decision that was properly recorded, with a good and robust process around it. this recorded, with a good and robust process around it.— process around it. this is a discussion _ process around it. this is a discussion related - process around it. this is a discussion related to - process around it. this is a discussion related to an i process around it. this is a - discussion related to an important discussion— discussion related to an important discussion made during the course of the management of the pandemic. that

would have the management of the pandemic. trust would have then been discussed at cabinet and recorded through, and you have seen all the minutes of the cabinet, but the minutes of the cabinet, but the minutes of the cabinet meetings, they don'tjust record the decision we arrive at. they will record if there is a paper giving different options. they will record that. and they will record a summary, of the points made in the discussions. summary, of the points made in the discussions-— summary, of the points made in the discussions. does that record record that our discussions. does that record record that your position _ discussions. does that record record that your position was _ discussions. does that record record that your position was as _ discussions. does that record record that your position was as it - discussions. does that record record that your position was as it stands, l that your position was as it stands, there _ that your position was as it stands, there is— that your position was as it stands, there is nothing we can point to to say we _ there is nothing we can point to to say we have — there is nothing we can point to to say we have listened to industry? i say we have listened to industry? would, i say we have listened to industry? i would, i don't have the cabinet minute from that date in front of me, but i absolutely am certain that around this point in particular, i will have spoken notjust in cabinet meetings but publicly about the need

to listen to industry, to listen to different groups in scottish society, as we arrived at the decisions. we were trying to take decisions. we were trying to take decisions that none of us wanted to be taking, and we were trying to reach those decisions in a way that we thought struck the right balance. i'm sure we will come on to talk later about the four harms approach the scottish government took, and in that we were listening as much as we could to different viewpoints. we were not always able to take account of those viewpoints because of the nature of the decisions, so i am absolutely certain that it would not have been news to anybody that we were struggling with the impact on industry of some of these decisions and we were at pains to show that as far as we could, given the nature of the decisions we were taken, we were listening to reasonable points that were being made. bloom i do think an

interested member of scottish society, or indeed this inquiry, should take no interest at all in the process by which this decision is made in this discussion is arrived at, including the fact you say, it is all so random and there is nothing we can point to to say we listened to industry liz lloyd's response, her involvement in the discussion generally or in this specific issue. i'm not saying there should be no interest from the inquiry, the inquiry does have an interest in this and the wider scottish public would. what i'm saying is i do not accept that it would have been unknown to the public at the time that these were theissues public at the time that these were the issues we were grappling with. every day i was taking the public through the different issues we were grappling with, the balances we were trying to strike, the trade—offs we were having and the different

viewpoints that we were trying as best we could to balance. in a sense this is an example of an exchange that, we look at it now in whatsapped, and i don't consider that there is anything in that exchange that would not have been known that was either in the record and through the cabinet minutes, or in public statements, that these were exactly the kind of issues we were exactly the kind of issues we were trying to reach considered and balanced judgments on.— balanced 'udgments on. thank you. can i balanced judgments on. thank you. can i take you _ balanced judgments on. thank you. can i take you to — balanced judgments on. thank you. can i take you to another _ balanced judgments on. thank you. can i take you to another documenti can i take you to another document now _ can i take you to another document now this— can i take you to another document now this is— can i take you to another document now. this is another exchange, this is not _ now. this is another exchange, this is not a _ now. this is another exchange, this is not a group that features you, but it _ is not a group that features you, but it is— is not a group that features you, but it is another piece of evidence we have _ but it is another piece of evidence we have seen and i would be interested in understanding your reflection on some of the content of the exchange. this is in your capacity— the exchange. this is in your capacity as former first minister, and first — capacity as former first minister, and first minister at the time up this is— and first minister at the time up this is a — and first minister at the time up this is a whatsapped group chat called _ this is a whatsapped group chat called covid outbreak. these

messages were provided to the inquiry— messages were provided to the inquiry by doctorjim mcmenaminn of public— inquiry by doctorjim mcmenaminn of public health scotland who did not delete _ public health scotland who did not delete his messages, and not by the scottish— delete his messages, and not by the scottish government or its officials _ scottish government or its officials. an exchange on the 27th officials. an exchange on the 27th of august— officials. an exchange on the 27th of august 2020, you will recognise no doubt _ of august 2020, you will recognise no doubt the individuals involved, ken thomson says, just to remind you. _ ken thomson says, just to remind you, seriously, this is discoverable under— you, seriously, this is discoverable under freedom of information, nowhere — under freedom of information, nowhere the clear chat button is, to which _ nowhere the clear chat button is, to which nicola steadman replied, yes absolutely. jason leitch points out, dg absolutely. jason leitch points out, 06 level— absolutely. jason leitch points out, dg level input there. mr thomson says. _ dg level input there. mr thomson says, plausible deniability are my middle _ says, plausible deniability are my middle name is. now clear it again. jason— middle name is. now clear it again. jason leitch— middle name is. now clear it again. jason leitch says, done. nicola steadman, me too. and somebody called _ steadman, me too. and somebody called dahmer bell, and me. were you aware _ called dahmer bell, and me. were you aware in _ called dahmer bell, and me. were you aware in your— called dahmer bell, and me. were you aware in your capacity as first minister— aware in your capacity as first minister that these sorts of exchanges took place and that a senior— exchanges took place and that a senior member of the civil service considered — senior member of the civil service considered plausible deniability to be his— considered plausible deniability to be his middle name? as

considered plausible deniability to be his middle name?— considered plausible deniability to be his middle name? as you said at the outset of _ be his middle name? as you said at the outset of the _ be his middle name? as you said at the outset of the question, - be his middle name? as you said at the outset of the question, i - be his middle name? as you said at the outset of the question, i was i the outset of the question, i was not a member of this group until some of these exchanges were exposed in evidence sessions last week. i have never seen these messages before. did i know there would be whatsapped groups where officials were exchanging information? i'm not sure i was particularly conscious of it but i would have been, had i been asked to stop and consider that, i would say i would assume so given the nature of how people were working. i would absolutely expect all officials in the scottish government to retain, in line with scottish government policies, information relevant to our decision—making. i look at that exchange and what i don't see is an exchange about the decisions taken, i see a light—hearted discussion between individuals. i know ben thompson has been before you and has given his interpretation of that so he can

answer and has answered for himself. i would read that as him reminding people of the need to be professional on whatsapp even when discussing light—hearted things. the other thing i would say about all the individuals on the screen is that they are all in my knowledge and experience, particularly with ken thompson, they are public servants of the utmost integrity and at this point and throughout the pandemic, they were public servants who were working in a committed and dedicated fashion in terms of the hours they were working, the pressure under which they were working, probably above and beyond the call of duty. ken thompson is someone i have worked with throughout my time in the scottish government and he is a civil servant of the utmost integrity, as i say, and the utmost professionalism. this u-rou was and the utmost professionalism. this group was called covid outbreak group, — group was called covid outbreak group, obviously connected to the covid _ group, obviously connected to the covid pandemic, yes? that group, obviously connected to the covid pandemic, yes?— group, obviously connected to the covid pandemic, yes? that is what ou are

covid pandemic, yes? that is what you are telling _ covid pandemic, yes? that is what you are telling me, _ covid pandemic, yes? that is what you are telling me, yes. _ covid pandemic, yes? that is what you are telling me, yes. that - covid pandemic, yes? that is what you are telling me, yes. that is i covid pandemic, yes? that is what| you are telling me, yes. that is the