Chamber and committees

Yes. I am sorry—that was a rather unfair question on FACTS. The point that I was trying to make is that it was designed to be a simple message but, in fact, it ended up being unduly complex. I will follow up on the convener’s question: is work being done to understand how effective that sort of message was? Did it cut through to the public? Was it easily understood?

My second question follows on from that comment. There was one group of people who basically said, “Covid is a hoax—don’t believe it,” and there was another group of people who took a slightly more rational view, which was, “We accept that Covid is a problem, but we’re nervous about being vaccinated because these vaccines have only just been invented and we don’t know what the long-term consequences will be.” Earlier, the convener mentioned pregnant women’s concerns about taking the vaccine. Therefore, were the public health messages across the UK sufficient to reassure people who were concerned about vaccinations? To what extent were those messages undermined by misinformation on the internet and elsewhere?

Good morning. I will follow up the convener’s questions to Dr Phin. I am interested to hear that your perspective has changed because you were working south of the border and moved north during the pandemic, so you have a double interest.

With regard to how effective the public health campaigns were, I remember that there was quite an effective slogan from the UK health department—“Hands. Face. Space”. I do not know whether that was your brainchild—no. However, in Scotland, we had FACTS. I am yet to find anybody who could tell me what “FACTS” stood for. Can you help me out? Can you remember what “FACTS” stands for?

Good morning, panel. Over the past two years, all the parliamentarians here will have experienced constituents writing in to express their views, including saying that Covid is a hoax, that it is all a conspiracy by the Government and that vaccinations are there to try and control the population, and usually linking to articles in obscure corners of the internet to back up their argument. I will put this question to Dr Dawn Holford first, because it is covered a bit in the paper that she submitted. What is the motivation for those who are actively spreading disinformation on the internet, which people pick up on?

Everybody else wants in so I ask you all to be quite brief.

I invite Callum Hood to comment and ask him to be fairly brief because we are running out of time.

I would like to bring in Stefan Webster to speak about Ofcom’s perspective. Throughout the pandemic, there were stages when Scotland and the rest of the UK were doing things at different times and the rules were changing. Therefore, people would watch the 6 o’clock news and hear a message from Chris Whitty or the UK Government saying one thing and then watch the Scottish news and hear something different from Nicola Sturgeon or Jason Leitch. Is there any evidence that that caused confusion for the public? Was that identified as a problem?

Although we make this comment in the annual report that we have just approved, I would like to record our grateful thanks to our committee advisers, who were of tremendous assistance to us throughout the past year. All of them were very accommodating and brought really interesting and distinct perspectives on different issues, such as public health and epidemiology, and our work as a committee would have been much harder had it not been for their input.

Fine. I will write to the cabinet secretary with the details.

I have one more question on a different matter. A number of constituents have raised with me the issue of hospital visiting. It seems that some hospitals have different visiting policies. Some say that, where there is Covid, visiting is allowed only in an end-of-life situation. Other hospitals say that only one nominated person may visit, except in an end-of-life situation, when more can come in. Is the matter subject to national guidance, or is it simply down to each individual hospital or national health service board to work out their own approach?

That is a very helpful and comprehensive assessment of the situation, but I seek clarity on the relationship between Lady Poole’s inquiry and other issues that you have highlighted. Clearly, it is open to private individuals to pursue litigation against the Scottish Government—in fact, litigation might already be in train. Does the Government expect to wait until Lady Poole has reached some conclusions on the matter before taking a decision on how it responds to potential litigation? If so, what is the likely timescale for that?