 The next item of business is topical questions, and at question number one, I call Sandesh Gulhane. To ask the Scottish Government what its current policy is regarding the deletion or retention of WhatsApp messages by ministers. I would refer to my statement to this chamber on the 31st of October last year. The policy regarding deletion or retention of WhatsApp messages is set out in the Scottish Government's well-established and overarching records management policy and supplemented by the mobile messaging app's guidance. I would reiterate that the Scottish Government does not routinely use WhatsApp for decision making or to provide advice to ministers. In the event that WhatsApp were used for such a purpose, the information would be retained for the corporate record in line with existing Scottish Government guidance and policy. I want to declare an interest as a practicing NHS GP. As a GP, I worked on the frontlines during the pandemic. My priority was always to look after my patients' health, yet in contrast during Covid, the Scottish Government was joking about deleting their WhatsApp messages with one official joking that plausible deniability is my middle name. We know the shameful culture of secrecy came from the very top, with Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney deleting all their messaging. The same Nicola Sturgeon who stood at the daily briefings with a pretense of moral superiority and yet behind the scenes it is clear the Scottish Government was mocking us. Believing none of this would ever come to light, the Government is shameful. How can this Government be trusted by the people of Scotland? Will the cabinet secretary take this opportunity to apologise for the behaviour to the people of Scotland? First and foremost, what is important is that the inquiry is allowed to do its job in scrutinising all of the decision making, the messages and its inquiry, to determine whether it has concerns about the application of mobile messaging policy or its content. We should allow them to get on with that. Of course, it is one aspect of the many issues that they are taking evidence on and reflecting on. What is important in all of this for those who worked on the frontline, those who are the Covid-19 bereaved families, is that lessons are learned from the pandemic to help us to prepare better for the future, which is why this Government will fully comply with the UK inquiry. It is, of course, why we established a separate Scottish inquiry, the only part of the UK to do so. No apology there. Deleting WhatsApp messages was not the only skewed priority from the nationalists during the pandemic. Extraordinary minutes from an SNP Government Cabinet meeting confirmed restarting work on independence and a referendum with the arguments reflecting the experience of the coronavirus crisis, and that was considered at the height of the public health emergency. This shows no matter how serious in situation nothing will stop the SNP from trying to pursue their political obsession with independence. Perhaps this was amongst the reasons that all electronic messaging was deleted. Can the cabinet secretary look the public in the eye and tell them that campaigning for independence and another referendum was the right priority during the height of the pandemic? It is pretty clear that the focus of the Scottish Government was on the pandemic and on dealing with the issues of the day in relation to the response to the pandemic. I think that looking at all the information that has been provided to the inquiry will support that position. I should also say to Sandesh Gulhane that, clearly, evidence that is being put in front of the inquiry should be allowed to interrogate that. They will interrogate those who are core participants, who are at the front of leadership in the Scottish Government at that time, some of whom are no longer in office, some of whom are still in office. The inquiry should be allowed to do that. In the same way, when it was sitting in London, the inquiry was interrogating some of the decision making, some of the conversations and chat that happened across social media at the time. Some of that is very uncomfortable, although there is no doubt about it, but what is important at the heart of that is that lessons are learned about the decision making on the pandemic, so that if it happens again, as it may well do in the future, lessons are learned to make sure that we get the response right and as fully compliant and as front footed as we possibly can learning the lessons that we are at the moment from the pandemic. Ken Thompson, the man who drafted the Scottish Government's records management policy, was advising people how to avoid complying with it. The national clinical director, Jason Leitch, who helped to shape the Covid regulations, was advising the current First Minister how to avoid the rules. Nicola Sturgeon, who promised transparency, has alongside John Swinney and senior civil servants deleted WhatsApp messages on an industrial scale. No lessons learnt there, Deputy First Minister. Whether messages were deleted nightly or weekly, it is clear that Jason Leitch wiped his messages completely and seemed to find the period during the pandemic all quite funny, judging from the messages that we have seen. This is not just a matter for the inquiry, it is a matter for the Scottish Government too. If the Scottish Government agrees that Jason Leitch's behaviour was inappropriate, is it not time that he was sacked? Well, Jason Leitch is not here to defend himself, as Jackie Baillie knows, and I do not think that it is fair to focus in this chamber on any individual. The inquiry is the place that should be allowed to interrogate anyone, whether it is Jason Leitch or whether it is the former First Minister, who of course will give evidence, as will the current First Minister. It should be for the inquiry to be able to interrogate the evidence, whether that is on messages or decision making or anything else, in terms of the frequency of deletion. It is actually not about the frequency of deletion of messages, but rather the importance of capturing any relevant information in line with records management policies. Whether that is on a day-to-day basis, a week-to-week basis or a month-to-month basis, it is important that the information on decision making and salient points is captured for the records management policy, which is in line with the section 61 code of practice on records management, which was in consultation with the Scottish Information Commissioner that states that information should only be kept as long as it is needed and provided this duty is met, the medium that contained the information can be deleted. That was in line with the Scottish Information Commissioners. As I say, anyone who the inquiry will have in front of them will be able to put all of those questions that it is important that the inquiry is allowed, Presiding Officer, to get on with its job. The Deputy First Minister talks about lessons being learned by this inquiry. Right now, tens of thousands of Covid bereaved families are looking to this inquiry for answers and those lessons, but these are answers and lessons that they may be forever denied, because despite assurances made to this Parliament and to the national media, it seems that Nicola Sturgeon never had any intention of passing her WhatsApp messages, messages that would have shown the culture and the calculation behind her pandemic response to the inquiry that she knew was sure to follow. Perhaps this is the biggest scandal in the history of devolution, the denial of justice to the bereaved families of the pandemic. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, when she has finished giving her evidence to the inquiry, she should come to this place, to this Parliament and explain herself? First of all, the Covid bereaved families are, of course, at the heart of this. That is why it is quite right that the inquiry should be pursuing any line of inquiry that it wants to, whether it is on mobile messaging messages or whether it is on the decision making, and that is the role of the inquiry. It is also why this Government established the Scottish Covid inquiry in order to give that additional scrutiny of matters relating to Scotland, not just the UK inquiry. That was a decision that was made only by the Scottish Government. In terms of the former First Minister's evidence, clearly she has still to give her evidence. She has also said that there are messages that have been submitted to the inquiry. I think that what we should allow the inquiry to do is to take evidence from those core participants, including the former First Minister, and then we should allow the inquiry to make its judgments about what it has heard. I am sure that I will do so in a very robust manner. Shouldn't police be investigating whether the activities of the message-deleting Covid cabal were in breach of the inquiries act? Of course that is a matter for Police Scotland to determine if it thinks that any laws have been broken. What I am saying today very clearly is that the records management policy is very clear about what should be retained and why and what should be put into the record management policy, any salient points, anything about decision making or anything of importance. The records management policy that was developed in consultation with information commissioner also sets out when it is appropriate to delete messages. That policy is kept under constant review and any changes to the policy will of course be brought forward and Parliament will be made aware of that. Any matters relating to the police or anything else are not a matter for me, they are a matter for Police Scotland. Michael Marra. Of course it is not only ministers and civil servants who are watching on TV. When the First Minister asked officials to look into record keeping, did he discover that other officials had also destroyed evidence? If so, how many took that action and destroyed evidence that would be required by the inquiry? As I said, the Scottish Government keeps policies under review and records management will be considered the next information governance board when it meets this Thursday. Of course the First Minister had asked the permanent secretary to ensure that all steps are being taken to meet the inquiry's request and the solicitor general to satisfy herself that the Scottish Government has met all of its legal obligations. That process has concluded and the First Minister has received the assurances that he required, which confirms that in responding to the UK and Scottish Covid inquiries legal advice has been taken and acted upon appropriately. However, as I said, the policy is kept under constant review and a paper identifying areas for review has been tabled for discussion at the information governance board that meets this week. Question 2, Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just the Scottish Government, where its response says to the closure of Addrossan Harbour's Irish Berth for safety reasons after corrosion was reportedly uncovered during an inspection by divers. Minister Fiona Hyslop. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the disruption and concern that this issue will have for communities on Arran on top of current weather disruption. The ports as the harbour authority responsible for the port advised CalMac to cease operations following routine inspection, impacting the MV Alfred, which can only operate to this berth. MV Isle of Arran will remain the main vessel on the route, while the MV Caledonia Isles is out of service for around five weeks for steel work repairs. I understand that Isle of Arran repairs are expected to be completed today, with updates on services tomorrow due imminently. The secondary route, Clorac Lachranza, remains in operation. Trials to allow a freight-only service from Tune using MV Alfred are to take place as soon as possible. Kenneth Gibson. I thank the minister for that reply. The MV Alfred is unable to operate from Addrossan's Arran berth, despite that vessel supposedly bringing much-needed resilience to the route, which cannot happen if she's tied up in air. I'm pleased that there are further developments in terms of how Alfred will be utilised in the forthcoming days. Of course, we found out that the MV Isle of Arran has a mechanical failure, which has cancelled all sailings to and from Addrossan until at least noon tomorrow. Does the minister appreciate islander frustrations at the lack of communication and urgency from the harbour operator, which has been less than forthcoming about the safety concerns identified by the divers on top of issues with the CalMac run ferry service? Can she say what information has been shared by appeal ports with the Scottish Government and its agencies? It is clearly responsible for appeal ports as the harbour operator to conduct that communication. However, I can say that contact has primarily been between CalMac and appeal ports. Transport Scotland has also been in liaison with appeal ports to impress on them the urgency of the issue and to understand the extent of the problem. CalMac met on Monday with the Arran ferry community to understand some of the issues and potential solutions. I can say that the Isle of Arran was able to take on all the passengers that were required with the MV Alfred, not being available over the weekend. Clearly, we need to make sure that there are good plans going forward and with birthing trials, weather permitting for the Isle of Arran after the repairs today. That would provide some certainty for the near future, but clearly the additional freight and passengers will need as we go forward in the coming months. I thank the minister for that further response. Trying to get information from appeal ports last week was like trying to get blood out of a stone. There is clearly a breakdown in trust locally with appeal ports due to its lack of investment in addressing harbour over decades. Does the minister agree that this episode highlights the urgent need for the harbour redevelopment project? Given the seemingly endless delays with the latest updated business case due next month, can she provide any information at this point as to when she now envisages redevelopment work beginning on site? I assure you that the Scottish Government remains committed to ensuring that the Arran ferry service is fit for the future. Indeed, I recall the member asking the First Minister at questions about the extent of the project because it was looking at the Irish birth, which probably makes sense in terms of some of the most recent developments. It is essential that the business case for the project is completed in order to have a greater certainty of the project costs and the financial package required. Work is on going on this, including the output of studies from appeal ports and from North Ayrshire Council, and we expect to discuss the business case work and options with the partners as soon as this is completed. In a letter to the address and harbour task force in November, it was indicated that improvement works would not include the replacement or strengthening of the Irish birth. Can the transport minister confirm whether the outcome of the business case for the redevelopment is still set to be delivered in February? I hope that Katie Clark had the opportunity to hear my answer to Mr Gibson, but the work on the business case continues. It includes the output of studies from appeal ports and North Ayrshire Council, and we expect to discuss the business case work and the options with the partners as soon as this is completed. There are ports still to come in as part of that. In terms of the concern about the extent of the business case, one of the reasons that we wanted to revisit the business case was to examine the scope of what would be required to make sure that there was a sustainable future to accommodate what would be required of the address and birth. I know that, at the time, it was uncomfortable to receive the letter to the task force, but it was realistic and appropriate to give that certainty that I'm sure everybody wants to see. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report by Homes for Scotland, highlighting that almost 700,000 households in Scotland are in housing need. I welcome the consideration that Homes for Scotland has given this important topic and look forward to discussing it with them soon. The Scottish Government is investing £752 million through the affordable housing supply programme in 2324, which includes £60 million national acquisition programme. I continue to work closely with local authorities to ensure that local housing needs are met. The Scottish Government has also commissioned research into housing insecurity and hidden homelessness to prove that I'm understanding of people who are homeless but who do not appear in Scotland's official figures. That research will be completed by summer 2024. I thank the minister for that answer and I note his desire to engage with Homes for Scotland because the results of this extensive survey show for the first time that more than a quarter of households in Scotland are in housing need. That headline covers 185,000 people struggling to afford their house with 85,000 people living in houses that they can't use because they're not adapted appropriately for disabilities. The report masks the day-to-day reality of people living in a house that is very far from being a decent home. The reality is that, without accurate measurements and understanding what is needed in terms of land supply, we do not stand a chance of meeting the targets that the Government has set. What is the minister going to do to take urgent action in light of the report to ensure that local authorities have the information that they need and are able to feed into the Government to provide accurate land supply figures that the Government can then act on? I thank the member for his question. I think that there are a couple of things that I want to mention. The figure is based on a sample of just under 14,000 households that have been extrapolated for the whole of Scotland. The figure of 700,000 households includes much more than those who require a new home, as the member has said. I think that the Homes for Scotland report recognises, and it is in page 15 of the report, when it says that the conclusion should not be drawn at 690,000 homes that are required. I meet Homes for Scotland on a regular basis. There are also members of the housing to 2048 board, and one of the key things that the board has been discussing is obviously about the use of data. I am sure that this report will come up. I will meet Homes for Scotland soon to discuss the report and obviously will try to make progress on what the recommendations are and what it has said in the report. I think that the answer is another indication of a minister with his head in the sand. The report is stark. In the absence of an effective land requirement assessment, Homes for Scotland has gone out and done the work and estimated that a quarter of a million households need a home. Instead of building them, the Government is slashing our housing supply budget. House starts are falling off a cliff, and the housing association sector has already passed judgment on the Scottish Government's budget by saying that it is an act of surrender and that the cut is going to deal a terrible blow to efforts to tackle child and family poverty. I say to the minister that the first step in solving any problem is acknowledging that there is one. How much more evidence, reports and pleas from organisations will it take for this Government to accept that there is a housing emergency of their own making and that serious action needs to be taken now? There are a couple of things that I mentioned, and I will come back to the question and answer that we commissioned report. A research on housing security and homelessness, which I said, will report in summer 2024. We will also be investing more than £0.5 billion in affordable homes across Scotland. Of course, I have met most of Scotland's local authorities to discuss the funding package, to discuss ways that we can work with them in that regard. I will continue to do so in the next number of months. The number of affordable homes that started has decreased by 24 per cent in the last quarter from July to September. No one in the housing sector now believes that the Scottish Government is on track to meet its housing targets. What review is being undertaken into the targets that the Government has set? They are really important, as Paul O'Kane has highlighted, to councils and housing associations meeting housing demands. Given the number of policies that have destabilised the housing sector, including the rent freeze and many housing associations reporting, that has meant that they have had to completely look again at their funding packages for future development, what conversations are now taking place with housing associations to make sure that those projects do take place? I thank the member for his question. I have mentioned that I meet housing associations and local authorities on a regular basis. There are two things that they have mentioned to me. One is about the macroeconomic situation and where interest rates have sat, where construction inflation has been over the last number of years as well. Speaking to the SFHA, it mentions that the biggest barrier that it has is the costs of borrowing. I hope that we will see a reduction in interest rates. I think that the other key thing is the reduction in the capital funding that we receive—a 10 per cent cut. We have to manage that. Again, I urge colleagues in the UK Government to look at that and try to support us more after he is genuine about the point that he has made. I think that we will clearly recognise that the solution to this problem ultimately has to be to increase dramatically the supply of new house bills. Can I ask what work the Scottish Government is doing to increase house building across all tenures through the use of modern methods of construction, including off-site manufacture? I thank the member for his question. The Scottish Government supports delivery of homes across Scotland using a range of off-site methods from timber frame construction to full and modular development. We will continue to do so through our affordable housing supply programme. We continue to support proven approaches that balance improvements with value. I think that we have mentioned that before as part of the rural housing action plans. We work with the house building sector to deliver the homes that we need. I have met manufacturers of modular development in the sector and I have also visited modular build developments. We will continue to do so. Stephen Kerr. While Edinburgh rent inflation is at 16 per cent, Glasgow rent inflation is at 14 per cent, the highest in the UK, including London. Why didn't the Scottish Government learn the lesson of its own commissioned analysis on rent controls, which are contributing to homelessness? That report said that there would be an increase in homelessness. It also said that there would be a restriction in the supply of new housing. Why is the Government so tone deaf to its own advisers? I will come back to the point that Stephen Kerr mentioned. I am glad that he mentioned the issue of homelessness. There was a report last week by Crisis, commissioned and worked with Herriot-Watt University. What it said about possible increases in homelessness is that the biggest impact that it has has been the freezing of local housing allowance and the freezing of benefits. That is the biggest issue in terms of the rise in homelessness. I wish that he would take that up with his UK colleagues. The housing bill will be coming forward in due course. I engage with the PRS sector on a regular basis. We need to build more homes. I acknowledge that. However, as I said, the biggest impact on homelessness, as he has discussed, is on local housing allowance and on the freezing of benefits. I hope that he takes that back to his UK Government colleagues. That concludes topical questions. Under rule 12.3 committee meetings, it states that a committee shall meet to consider such business on such days and at such times, as it may from time to time to decide, subject to any timetable specified in the business programme. Today, we have learned that the convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee has cancelled a stage 2 debate of the Wildlife, Mureburn and Management Bill. The cancellation at the beginning of stage 2 of such an important bill will potentially delay legislation with knock-on effects for the rest of the committee's work programme and other current and forthcoming legislation. A unilateral decision by the convener, without consulting members, to do this as an insult to the hard work of those committee members whose efforts are being undermined by the whims of a convener, more interested in playing politics than discharging the functions of his role. Can the Presiding Officer please advise on what action she and this Parliament can take to ensure that the committee meets tomorrow to consider stage 2 of this important bill? I am not aware of the circumstances to which you refer, but it is in the first instance a matter for the convener of the committee, and I would suggest in the first instance that you take it up directly with the convener.