 Y next item of business is debate on motion 1247, in the name of Douglas Ross, on independent investigation into the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I invite members who are wishing to participate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Douglas Ross to speak to you and move the motion around 11 minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in my name. The Buth is at the heart of the debate that we are proposing today and the efforts to get crucial answers for bereaved families who are looking at the Covid Inquiries for informed responses having considered all of the information. All of us in this place have a collective responsibility to stand up for the integrity of our Parliament. If the value of what is said in this chamber is put into question o'r gorau, mae'n credu i ddweudio cymaintol, rym ni'n ei ddaf yn dweudio rym ni'n credu i ddweudio'r dweudio'r dweudio'r gyfnod yn dwelladau'n gyfeirio. Glwran y cyhoeddaeth oherwydd, mae dioddu i ddweudio'n gwaith. Felly mae'n nhw'n ddweudio'n gwneud y cwntent yn gydag i gydag i fod yn cael ei ddweudio'n ysgrifoedd dioltaeth ac yn ddweudio'n gwneud. We owe it to our constituents who expect their representatives to conduct themselves with honesty. If the public cannot trust parliamentarians, then that reflects badly not only on one individual party, but on us all. That's why the question before us today should be above the usual partisan considerations. This is not a battle of ideas. It's not a debate about how we best govern our country. It's a simple consideration of the facts and the evidence of what was said and whether there was a deliberate attempt to mislead. The ministerial code, signed off by Hamza Yousaf, is clear. It states, and I quote, It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to the parliament. And on penalties it says ministers who knowingly mislead the parliament will be expected to offer their resignation. So what should happen next if the ministerial code has been breached is not in question. It's already there in print. And the motion that the Scottish Conservatives have put down today doesn't even make a final judgement on whether this chamber was misled by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Though I will certainly put forward the case later in my speech. All it calls for is an independent investigation into whether there has been a rule breach and why. There shouldn't be a single member in this chamber today who cannot support that motion. And I can confirm that we will accept the Labour amendment today. But of course we will have to reject the amendment proposed by the SNP. I think that people watching will find it incredible that the party of government will not even allow an independent assessment of what the First Minister and Deputy First Minister told this. Parliament. If the government believes that there has been no breach of the code then why would they not allow an investigation to go ahead to confirm their side of events. But I suspect it's because they already know what the findings would be and that would not be favourable for Hamza Yousaf or for Shona Robison. But if the government is unwilling to allow that investigation then let me today set out the facts and allow members and the public to draw their own conclusions. I will give way. I'm very grateful to Douglas Ross giving way. Would he agree with me that one of the Nolan principles that requires accountability suggests that public office holders should of course submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this? Douglas Ross. I absolutely agree with the member who chairs the standards committee in this Parliament and let's not forget previous SNP Government ministers, previous SNP First Ministers have referred themselves to the independent adviser. I have to question why the current First Minister and Deputy First Minister are unwilling to do so. But it was in November of last year that the UK Covid inquiry wrote to the SNP Government asking for and this is a quote. The extent to which there was informal or private communication about significant decision making including for example whether there were WhatsApp groups or other form of group chats which key decision makers used. Then in February of this year they asked for and another quote, any communications relating to key decisions including internal and external emails, text messages or WhatsApp messages on Scottish Government and private or personal devices. I will give way to any SNP member who can argue that that doesn't constitute a request for the messages. I will give way to any of them. None. No SNP member, Presiding Officer, is able to stand up in this Parliament and defend their Government's argument that they had not been asked for the messages. It's because that was not a request for a summary or a minute of the decisions made but for the actual messages and I think the silence from the SNP members suggests they know it. Let's be clear, that request wasn't made only once in February but again in March, in July, in August, in September and in October. So again, we're in a debate, I will give way to any SNP representative having heard of all of these requests who can claim that was not a requirement for the Government to hand over messages. Not just SNP back ventures but I will give way to the Deputy First Minister if she would like to defend her case that that was not a request for messages. Nothing. Not a single member willing to do so because we know that on each of those occasions by the last one the messages were withheld. Jamie Dawson Casey, the council to the inquiry said this three weeks ago. The Scottish Government has provided the inquiry with no WhatsApp or other informal messaging material either in its own possession or the possession of individuals. So we have a situation where nine months ago the Scottish Government was asked for WhatsApp messages to be provided to the inquiry but they were only handed over last week. Yet on 31 October the Deputy First Minister said this. In June this year the inquiry came back to ask for groups of WhatsApp messages, the titles of those groups and who the members of those groups were. Then in September the inquiry asked for the individual messages, refusing to mention the fact that the inquiry had made similar requests in February, March, July and August. However Shona Robison went further. In response to my questions in this chamber on 31 October she said it is not correct to say that it has been over a year since that request was made, it has been just over a month. That is not the truth. The evidence supplied by the Deputy First Minister herself in the Scottish Government initiated question on 8 November contradicts this. Let us not forget that this evidence was only supplied by the SNP Government because they were forced to do so by the UK Covid inquiry. The Scottish Government was all too happy to be spinning a different tale on timings until the inquiry called them out. The First Minister was even more definitive in his framing of the request. On 2 November he said this. It is crucial to say that when the UK Government inquiry asked us in June for details of the various WhatsApp groups concerning Covid-19 it did not request the messages themselves. The messages were asked for in September just a matter of weeks ago. Again, that is not true. It is a false statement from the First Minister to this Parliament. Details of the WhatsApp groups were asked for a year ago, not five months ago, as Humza Yousaf has claimed. It was nine months, not a matter of weeks, that the SNP Government left request after request for these messages outstanding. When I raised this with the First Minister last week he said he had interpreted the request too narrowly. Too narrowly? They did not consider the request at all. They ignored them time after time after time. Two weeks ago not a single WhatsApp message had been transferred from the Scottish Government to the Covid inquiry. The Scottish Parliament has been told contradictory stories about key messages the SNP Government should have provided to the UK Covid inquiry and when that crucial information was requested. Humza Yousaf and Shona Robison should be ashamed of their blatant attempt to deceive grieving families who lost loved ones during the Covid pandemic. They chose spin and secrecy over transparency and truth. How can we draw any other conclusion that they have not been honest, they have misled Parliament, they have broken the ministerial code? I am very grateful to the member for giving way. Do you agree with me that it is that context? What is at stake here is the context of key decisions that were made in government at a time of crisis. Critically, failure to understand that context will mean that we cannot learn the lessons that we so badly need to learn for future crises. I absolutely agree with Daniel Johnson and I will repeatedly say this. It is not up to the Scottish Government to SNP ministers to say what is relevant or not for the Covid inquiry. We need to get full answers, full transparency so that they have to hand over absolutely everything. The most senior SNP members were still dodging scrutiny by refusing to launch an independent investigation as per their amendment today. On 26 October, the First Minister promised me in this chamber that the Government would fully investigate why those messages had not been transferred and that the Solicitor General had been tasked to lead that investigation, yet that is the last that this Parliament has heard of it. In the interests of transparency and openness, will the Deputy First Minister update us today on the status of that investigation and on the one launched by the permanent secretary? If not, then I expect many will assume it is because it would again reinforce that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have not told the truth. That the request for meetings dates from February rather than September, as they claim, and as a result, both Hamza Yousaf and Shona Robison have deliberately misled this Parliament. Mr Ross, you are well aware of signing orders in relation to accusations that members have deliberately misled this Parliament. Just a warning that we should be steering clear of that and that is not just in relation to yourself but the chamber as a whole through the context of this debate. I am grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I will be careful, but I believe that it is deliberate because these statements were not a simple slip of the tongue. They were a product of a concerted effort to confuse and muddle the timeline to make it seem as though the SNP Government were not dragging their heels in getting evidence to the inquiry. Presiding Officer, as I have shown the facts are clear, there can be no doubt that the ministerial code was broken, that the information given by Hamza Yousaf and Shona Robison on the timing and scope of requests from the UK Covid Inquiry was false. Yet there is a due process that can be followed, and therefore I urge Parliament to vote for our motion today to launch an independent investigation. If the Government do not believe that there has been a breach of the code, why would they not want that to be investigated? The UK Covid Inquiry exists to give bereaved families the answers they deserve on the motivations for the decisions taken during the pandemic. They should be given all the information that they need to find those answers. They should not have to call out the two most senior SNP members to do so. If members in this Parliament do not stand up for honesty in this chamber, then this Government will always feel able to keep us and our constituents in the dark. It is past time that members of all parties stood up for the truth in the Parliament in which they serve. I now call on Shona Robison to speak to and move amendment 11247.2, Deputy First Minister, around nine minutes please. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. I hope to set out today why I not only reject the motion but also reject its premise. I want to start by repeating the acknowledgement of the First Minister last week that in hindsight we do recognise that the Scottish Government interpreted the earlier requests for messages from the UK Inquiry in a way that was too narrow. Like the First Minister last week, I want to offer my unreserved apology to families who have been bereaved by Covid for any distress that our actions as a result of that interpretation has caused them. I'll take an intervention. I'm very grateful indeed for the Deputy First Minister taking my intervention. I keep hearing the Government use this excuse of interpreting the requirements of the UK Covid inquiry too narrowly. I don't understand that. Many of us served in this Parliament at the time of the Covid emergency. We all knew this inquiry was coming. Constantly, the Government insisted that it would fall over itself to provide messages and evidence to the inquiry. Is this the interpretation that we have? Let me go into some of the detail on that in response to Alex Cole-Hamilton. In my statement of 31 October and in answers, I did acknowledge that there had been initial requests from the UK inquiry for messages. The Scottish Government's interpretation of the requests from the inquiry at the time was that they were related in the main to decision making. As we have already set out, the Scottish Government did not and does not routinely take decisions via messaging services like WhatsApp. Subsequently, and in line with the inquiry's request, we have provided a far wider scope of almost 28,000 messages to the inquiry to go along with the thousands of documents that had already been shared. We are committed to full co-operation with both the Scottish and UK inquiries, and the reason for that is simple. As others have said, learning the lessons from the pandemic is vital to prepare for the future. The Labour amendment today makes—yes, okay. Daniel Johnson. I struggle to understand why the Government misinterpreted the request and interpreted it so narrowly, because surely the point of inquiry is to understand why decisions were made. Therefore, the context of the decisions is critical, and therefore those messages were of course relevant to inquiry. So why did the Government make that decision? Why did they interpret it so narrowly? The focus was on decision making and providing the record of decision making. The subsequent requests from the inquiry asked for that broader range of context that Daniel Johnson is referring to. That is, of course, what I set out in my statement in terms of the various stages, including that request for WhatsApp groups, the request for those messages within those WhatsApp groups. That is why, of course, the timeline put in through the GIQ was important to set all of that out in detail. However, I am not going to stand here and not say that lessons need to be learned from all of the handling of whether it was the response to the initial inquiries or indeed any other issues, because the last thing I want or the Scottish Government wants is to upset any of the bereaved families. That is absolutely not the intention here, and I would regret any of that having been the case. I want to move on to the legal very briefly, because I want to move on. Douglas Ross, I am grateful for Shona Robison giving way. Can she confirm when she, as a current member of the Government and a member of the previous Government, was made aware of the request in February for the full messages? When was she personally made aware of that? When I was making the statement, the preparations for the statement, it was very clear the advice to me of what the Scottish Government's interpretation was. Of those earlier requests was for decision making, and my statement was made on the basis of that. What the First Minister and I have said since then is an acknowledgement of looking back at those requests. We can see the inquiry has a point, and that is why, of course, the GIQ put that information of the whole timeline, all of the information that was asked for into the public domain. I want to move on to the legal advice, because the Labour amendment today makes reference to the legal advice provided to the Scottish Government during the pandemic. The Scottish Ministerial Code explicitly states that the Scottish ministers may acknowledge publicly that they have received legal advice on a particular topic but must not divulge either who provided the advice or its contents, whether it is from law officers or anyone else. That is the long-standing convention of respecting the legal professional privilege of legal advice provided to the Government, privilege that I understand that Governments elsewhere in these islands also follow. The code also sets out that, where in exceptional circumstances ministers come to the view that the balance of public interest lies in disclosing either the source or the contents of legal advice on a particular matter, the law officers must then be consulted and their prior consent obtained before any disclosure takes place. Such consent will only be granted where there are compelling reasons for disclosure in the particular circumstances. It is the view of ministers that disclosure to the inquiries fits with a commitment towards transparency. As a result, Scottish Government officials have sought an agreement with the inquiries, giving them full access to unredacted material that is legally privileged. We will also be seeking to ensure that the inquiries are able to disclose that material, if they consider it necessary to do so, subject to any overriding contrary public interest. Our overall commitment will be to full transparency. The First Minister has set out to the chamber that such... Briefly. I thank the Deputy First Minister for Given Way. How can this Government be fully transparent if WhatsApp messages were manually deleted by key players during the Covid-19 inquiry? Deputy First Minister, I will give you the time back. I was dealt with in my statement at length about the record management policy of this Government. That is that decision making, whether it is on WhatsApp or anything else, should be transcribed to the official record. That is set out very clearly in the record management policy and remains the same. What I am talking about here is the legal advice, and I want to conclude the point. There is a view of ministers, as I said earlier, that disclosure to the inquiries fits with a commitment towards transparency. I hope that that is something that will be welcomed. The First Minister has already set out to the chamber that such a decision by the Scottish Government officials to seek redactions would only be in exceptional circumstances where they had a legal responsibility to do so. I would stress that they would also be required to advise the inquiries of their reasons for doing so. I can confirm to the chamber that we are close to an agreement with the Scottish inquiry and we are in on-going discussions with the UK inquiry. I do not have time. Sorry, I need to make some progress. Further to my previous statement and in line with a request from the UK inquiry, I have provided Parliament, as I said earlier, with an extensive timeline of the request from the inquiry through a GIQ answer last week. That answer provides a full timeline of the request to the Scottish Government and how we have complied with those requests. The Scottish Government has worked and will continue to work to provide the UK Covid inquiry with material requests. Total more than 19,000 documents have been provided to the UK inquiry. I do not have time. In relation to messages collated by the Scottish Government, we sought and received from the UK inquiry a section 21 notice to ensure that we could process personal information contained in the messages lawfully to the inquiry. With that legal basis in place, we have transferred over 14,000 group messages and a further 14,000 messages between individuals. That takes the total number of messages that have been shared with the inquiry to almost 28,000. I should clarify that I have not seen the messages that have been transferred to the inquiry, but I am advised that they include messages from current and former ministers and civil servants. There will, of course, be material and messages that will have been provided by individual witnesses who have received rule 9 requests. However, to be clear, ministers do not have access to the responses of individuals. Those are rightly matters between those individuals and the inquiry. With your indulgence, Deputy Presiding Officer, I have a few comments to make on record retention. I can give you a bit more time. I would like to highlight the information regarding the handling and retention of records, including but not limited to informal communications by the Scottish Government that I provided in my statement made to the chamber on 31 October. The Scottish Government's duty to create and retain records has remained consistent throughout the period that the inquiries are looking at, and we have complied with that duty. The Scottish Government actively submits to record management review processes with the keeper of the records to ensure that our approach is compliant with the law. A detailed record and evidence of key decisions that were taken during the pandemic has been maintained by the Scottish Government. Our policies fully comply with our legislative obligations under the Public Records Act 2011 and other legal obligations, which is why we have had such a volume of material to share with the inquiry. The Scottish Government's record management policy makes plain that there must be the transcription and storing of salient information from informal communications such as evidence of decision making to the centralised record system. The record management policy continues to apply to all records. The guidance has always been clear that, regardless of the platform or new and emerging technologies, information that is relevant to the corporate record must be saved. Those practices for good record management are the ones that will continue to promote at every level within government, and they are kept under review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. Since the introduction of those policies, the Government has been asked to ensure that the retention of any and all material that may have relevance to the work of the inquiries. The permanent secretary and the First Minister have been clear with the Scottish Government that those requests must be a tier two. The Deputy First Minister is just concluding. I am sure that the Minister for Parliamentary Business will be able to address that in the closing. Finally, I would like to finish by underlining our commitment to do all that we can to ensure that the important work of both inquiries can proceed at pace. That is in all our interests and we owe nothing less not only to those who have lost their lives or lost their loved ones in the course of the pandemic, but also to all those affected, including many public sector workers that pulled together during this difficult time and whose work made it possible for our society to return to the normality enjoyed by all of us. I move the amendment in my name, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Just a reminder to anyone who has not yet pressed their button but who has intended to speak in the debate to do so as soon as possible. I call Anna Sarwar to speak to and move amendment 1247.1 around seven minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. I think that it is important that we start by acknowledging why this issue matters so much. It is not just because it speaks to an SNP Government which has lost control. It is not just because the story is another example of the secrecy and cover-up which has tainted the SNP's approach to so many of the scandals rocking this Government from ferries to public safety or to the state of our NHS. It is both of those things, but most importantly it is about this SNP Government being held accountable for their decisions and conduct during the most tragic event in living memory. During the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic in Scotland, thousands of our fellow citizens died. Young people saw their education disrupted at levels that we have never seen before and with consequences we still do not fully understand. Untested and Covid-positive patients were sent into care homes with devastating consequences. People were shut away from seeing friends and family. People fell sick and were left to die alone. Their families mourning alone. That is why every ministerial decision and the conversation that informed them weighs so heavily not just on the politicians who made them but on the homes of every single family across Scotland. That is why this issue matters. Across this country, people deserve the truth about how these life-and-death decisions were made. That is not just about learning the lessons for the future. It is also about delivering clarity and, hopefully, some closure for so many people living with heartache across our country. The least Scots could have expected was that their Government would make getting the truth as easy as possible. That has clearly not been the case and not the strategy adopted by this SNP Government. Despite claims from Humza Yousaf, as far back as May that the Scottish Government should be, in his words, absolutely open and transparent, we have seen attempts to withhold vital evidence from the inquiry all while changing the excuse every time the stories fell apart. In June, I asked the First Minister directly and I quote, will he confirm that all ministers and officials, past and present, have complied with the do not destroy instruction? Will he give a guarantee that all requested emails, texts and WhatsApp messages will be handed over in full to the inquiry? He gave a direct and simple answer. He said, and I quote, yes, they will. No equivocation, no caveats, no grey area. He went on to say, and I quote again, to ensure that there is simply no doubt whatsoever, any material that is asked for, WhatsApp messages, emails, signal messages, telegram messages or whatever, will absolutely be handed over to the Covid inquiries and handed over to them in full. His response was either hubris, naivety, incompetence or perhaps all three, regardless it is clear that it must be referred for an investigation into misleading this Parliament. In June, the First Minister told the Parliament, I will give way. Douglas Lyndon. I thank Anasawa for giving way. From what he has explained, it is a very serious matter. Does he agree with me that it would be more relevant for the First Minister to be here today to listen to the arguments being made? In ideal circumstances, I think that the First Minister should be here. I can only hope that he listens to this debate or that he reads the transcript of the debate. I know from the last two weeks that he had not certainly read the transcript of the Covid inquiry but perhaps he will take the time to read the transcript of this debate. In June, the First Minister told the Parliament that the Government had, again, a long-standing policy on retention, including email and social media messages. Then it transpired that Nicola Sturgeon and Dacian Leitch had deleted the WhatsApp messages and the First Minister then changed the story and told the Government, again, a social media messaging policy that required us to routinely delete WhatsApp messages, then the Deputy First Minister told Parliament that 14,000 WhatsApp messages would be handed over to the inquiry and then suddenly the First Minister, having told the inquiry that he did not have WhatsApp messages, miraculously found an old phone with his messages from the time and says that he will hand them over to the inquiry. I do not understand whether he misled the inquiry and is now clarifying, misled Parliament, or maybe he just broke the guidance that he said the Government had about requiring us to delete WhatsApp messages. Was he breaking his own policy, utter confusion, loss of control and utter confusion? I will give way. I hope that we get some clarity from the Deputy First Minister. I have been very clear in my statement on what I have said today, and that is that the requirement around messages, whether they are WhatsApp or anything else, is to transcribe any decision making into the corporate record. Anna Sarwar understands that no organisation can keep every single message about every single thing. It would not comply with the law to do so, so the requirement is that messages that contain important salient information are transcribed to the corporate record, but they should not be retained forever, because that would be a breach of the legal obligations of the organisation. That is an even more confusing answer, because what the Deputy First Minister is saying is that the First Minister has breached the guidance of the Government, because he is saying that he has kept all his messages and will hand them over, but somehow the guidance is that messages have to be deleted. It is complete and utter chaos. To put it into context, the Government supplied 14,000 messages, Matt Hancock alone, one person as opposed to 70 officials and ministers, one person handed over 100,000 messages to the Covid inquiry, compared to 14,000 messages. I am aware of time, but I will get time back. Just to be clear again, today I have updated Parliament that there are 28,000 messages that have been transferred to the inquiry, but in addition to that will be the individual responses to the inquiry, which I have not seen, but no doubt will contain what that message is and other elements of material as well. Let's listen to the person who is the chair. I am sure the Deputy First Minister's fog brain would have sounded like clarity to her, but it does not sound like clarity to anyone watching. What remains unclear is whether the First Minister told the inquiry he did not have messages, was it before or after having committed in June to supplying all the messages in full? Perhaps time will tell on that. That is not all. Three weeks ago, counsel to the UK inquiry stated that it asked for the Scottish Government for copies of informal messages such as WhatsApps in February. Around 31 October, the Deputy First Minister told Parliament that the UK inquiry first asked for messages in September. The First Minister repeated that claim on 2 November. He said that, I quote, the messages were asked for in September just a matter of weeks ago. Both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister directly contradicted the counsel to the inquiry statement on 26 October. It was only after being forced by the UK inquiry that the Deputy First Minister sought to correct the record. If that were the extent of the falsehoods, it would still be an open-shut case in my view on that investigation on misleading Parliament. However, the reality is that it goes further, because the true scale of the cover-up that many fear is taking place is still unclear, because this SNP Government has repeatedly refused to answer even some of the most basic questions. The inquiry has made clear that there is no issue with confidentiality with some of the basic questions and answers. That is just another false excuse from this Government. The First Minister has still failed to tell Parliament off the 70 ministers and officials how many have failed to comply with the do not destroy notice and how many have deleted messages. Still no answer. Why did the Scottish Government hand over redacted legal advice to the inquiry when it provided legal advice in full to other judicial inquiries in the past? Still no answer. Now we have had a clarification that there will be the supply of unredacted legal advice, but the question still remains, Deputy Presiding Officer. Why does it take the UK Covid inquiry fighting with the Government to get legal advice that it is entitled to? Why does it take this Government being shamed in this Parliament for them to do what they have done for every single judicial inquiry in the past? It has also been reported that SNP ministers and special advisers use SNP and private emails accounts to communicate, so I ask again how many emails from SNP accounts have been handed to the inquiry, how many and if none, why not? Now, in closing, councillor to the UK inquiry has said that if the information now provided by the Government is insufficient, the inquiry will want to know why, but so too will this Parliament. Presiding Officer, the First Minister has lost control of his Government and he in my view requires to be referred for an investigation into misleading this Parliament and trying to cover it up. It has promised full transparency and co-operation with the inquiry, but it has failed. As much as it tries and hides, I hope that it all goes away for the sake of the families, they must and will be held to account. I know call Alex Cole-Hamilton around six minutes, Mr Cole-Hamilton. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the Conservative Party for making time for this important debate this afternoon. Transparency matters in the boardrooms of the private sector and indeed in the corridors of the Scottish Government transparency matters. William Douglas reminds us that sunlight is the best disinfectant. He is not wrong. Without it, the rot sets in. There is very little sunlight in the Scottish Government right now. Thousands of grieving families are looking to these inquiries for the answers. UK Government WhatsApps released already so far show minute by minute what was really going on behind the scenes in London and how those decisions were made. It shows that the discussions behind an order were often as important as the order itself. That the UK Covid inquiry had to instruct Scottish ministers to return to this Parliament and set the record straight speaks to at best a casual attitude towards the work of the inquiry and at worst an attempt to undermine it. Whichever an analysis is correct, the Scottish Government has been deliberately slow walking its co-operation with Baroness Hallett and her commission. The inquiries requests were in black and white. They could not have been clearer. The Government said that they had interpreted it too narrowly. Narrowly. I said this in my intervention to the Deputy First Minister. That defence would suggest a minimal and grudging approach to co-operation instead of being as open as possible. It was only when the pressure from the inquiry became too great. When the pressure from the media became too great that the Scottish Government were finally embarrassed into playing ball. I really hope that this does not delay the evidence and findings of the inquiry or worse still act as a barrier to the answers that those families are entitled to. I'm also grateful to Nassarwar for bringing forward Labour's amendment today. It gives us an opportunity to debate the functionality and the application of the ministerial code. Should it just be for Humza Yousaf and his ministers to reserve themselves to the independent adviser? Or should there be provisions more like the ethical standards commission where any third party who presents a threshold of sufficient evidence can trigger an investigation? Presiding officer, we'll hear a lot from Government benches today about the volume of messages that have now finally been passed on by the Government to the inquiry. But drowning it in 28,000 messages, unredacted as they may be, will not make up for what isn't there. It has been reported that the messages handed over by the Scottish Government are mainly from group chats featuring three or more ministers and civil servants and do not include one-to-one exchanges between members of the Government. Reports also suggest that the former First Minister and senior Government officials were routinely excising their message feeds. We can argue about what the SNP were asked for and when, but for me, this is the rub of the matter. Secrecy, selective memory, a failure to record or retain the records of the most important meetings are nothing new to the SNP or in particular the former First Minister. Thinking back at that time, it was unprecedented time. We all laid party politics aside. More trust existed between opposing front benches than ever before or since. Nicola Sturgeon said how Government would make mistakes. We all accepted that in the knowledge and understanding that we were in uncharted waters. I will give way to Daniel Johnson. I am very grateful to the member for giving way. Does he agree with me that some of the evidence that we have already heard from the UK and Covid Inquiry about UK Government decisions is that what has been revealing is that the culture and the way the organisation was making decisions that were as important as the substance of the actual decisions themselves? Do we not have the same interests in having the same information about the Scottish Government? That cuts to the heart of this. The background chatter behind the decisions that were taken are as important and the culture that they reveal are as important as the decisions themselves. We all agreed that the Government would make mistakes, but if those decisions were backed by science, they would stand up to the scrutiny of the inquiry that we all knew was certain to follow the pandemic. If Nicola Sturgeon has deleted key messages that informed her response, messages that might show how she weighed science against politics in the consideration of those decisions, then she too undermines the work of this inquiry. A particular tragedy of Scotland's pandemic story lies in the decision taken in April 2020 to move untested and Covid-positive patients from our hospitals to our nation's care homes. We will forever be denied a comprehensive understanding of the discussion that led to that because we will never have all the messages. There has long been belief that the former First Minister would deliberately breach the trust of collective foreign nation decision making to dash out announcements before anyone else to look like she was leading the field. That she took decisions based solely on a desire to be different from Boris Johnson. She will never be able to fully dismiss those suggestions because we will never have all of the messages. Lives and livelihoods hinged on these decisions and yet people at the heart of this, Nicola Sturgeon, her advisers, were erasing the discussions that underpinned decisions like these. Those grieving families, those who have been failed, may be forever denied the full story behind the calls that she made, the goal of it, the bare-faced mendacity of it to state repeatedly in this chamber from the floor on which we stand that Nicola Sturgeon and her advisers would open themselves up to the full scrutiny of an inquiry that we all knew was sure to follow the pandemic. Then it seems to go home at night and systematically delete the very evidence that those messages could offer. That reality, Presiding Officer, could yet prove to be one of the biggest scandals in the history of this Parliament. The sunlight is the best, in fact, but this is a governing party that is afraid of the light, afraid of the truth that they conceal and afraid of the judgment that would surely follow be rendered by the people of Scotland should those ever truths come to light. I fully expect the SNP and Greens will protect their leaders today, but if this debate has achieved nothing else, it should at least exert pressure on the Government to offer greater co-operation to the UK Covid inquiry and by extension offer answers and a degree of closure to the grieving families at the heart of this. We now move to the open debate. I call First Megan Gallacher to be followed by John Mason in around five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Why is this Government not telling the truth? That is the big question that remains unanswered in the SNP's secret Scotland. For weeks, Douglas Ross has forensically questioned the First Minister over what information key players in the Covid-19 pandemic handed over to the UK inquiry, but the answers given by Humza Yousaf and Shona Robison just don't add up. On 31 October, it was announced that the Scottish Government was initially approached for WhatsApp messages by the UK inquiry in September. On 2 November, the Deputy First Minister then said that they were approached in February. He would have forgiven them if it was a few days out, but eight months is not a simple mistake. Were they mendacious with the truth, or why did they fail to correct the record if it was an honest mistake? Those questions are why the Scottish Conservatives have brought this motion to the chamber today. Something stinks about the SNP's attitude towards handing information over to the Covid inquiry. It is the duty of every member of this Parliament to find out why. If the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were confident in their positions, they would refer themselves to the independent adviser of the Scottish Ministerial Code. If they have got nothing to hide, they have got nothing to worry about. Instead, we have the Whitewash amendment from the Scottish Government, one that layers bear their arrogance, that completely avoids themselves of any scrutiny or accountability. That brings me on to the WhatsApp messages. We have been told about the 14,000 or 20,000 WhatsApp messages that they have handed over, but every time they are challenged on the deletion of WhatsApp messages, they crumble, because they know. They know that people who made key decisions during the pandemic have manually deleted WhatsApp messages. Jamie Dawson from the UK Covid inquiry said this. The majority of messages have not been retained. Now, there will be some in the SNP benches that will say, so what? So what if these messages have been deleted? We have been told that the Scottish Government did not make key decisions on this platform. Well, I challenge every minister or former minister today to prove that no key decisions were taken. To prove that information deleted wasn't relevant to the Covid inquiry. But you can't prove a negative, can you? That's why people are up in arms about this. Because the key players, Jason Leitch and Nicola Sturgeon, were told not to delete messages during the pandemic as it could be relevant afterwards. But now, even the UK inquiry believe that vital information could be lost, and I find that shameful, Presiding Officer. And I'm sure that the brave families who are wanting answers will also find this behaviour shameful. Presiding Officer, I referenced SNP's secret Scotland earlier, because transparency has never been their strong point. We've seen it time and time again. Ferguson Marine, the botched police Scotland IT systems, the false claims around offshore wind, and who can forget the party's finances probe, which, by the way, is still on-going. The Government Party is shrouded in secrecy, and Scotland is worse off for it. Members of this chamber from all parties have a choice today. They have the choice to stand up to this Government and show that transparency matters, that truth in this Parliament is more important than partisan political interests. And I'm sure that there are many colleagues. I'm grateful to Megan Gallagher to give way. Would you not agree with me that, of course, it is inherent upon the members of this place to be transparent, but it's also a requirement under the Nolan principles that you need to be open, you need to be transparent. It is a demand made on us for taking these roles. Megan Gallagher, I'll give you the time back. Absolutely, and this is why this debate is so important today. Because I'm sure that there are many colleagues from all parties who stood for election for the same reasons that I did. To represent their communities, but also to make sure that Scotland is a better place. They did not stand for election to defend the sleek-it behaviour and evasion. To be lobby fodder for a Government that's determined to pull the wool over the eyes of the chamber and the public. Presiding Officer, it's past time that this Parliament stood up for itself that its members showed some backbone and forced this Government to tell the truth. Thank you. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. The subject of cross-government transparency is an important one and impacts on all levels of government, whether at Westminster, here at Holyrood or at local government level. The original title for today's debate was cross-government transparency, but none of those words actually appear in the motion, which I guess I find a bit surprising, but so be it. If we start with the Covid pandemic, it's worth reflecting on how we as a Parliament dealt with it. We had frequent statements from both the First Minister and other ministers with ample opportunities to ask questions about decisions, why they were being made and when they were coming into force. We also had a Covid committee of which I was a member and was chaired when I joined by Donald Cameron, and I have to say quite fairly chaired from my memory. Week by week we had the relevant Minister and usually experts like Jason Leitch and Linda Bald either answering questions in public or advising the committee. I think we should remember too that we were in unknown territory with limited information but having to make urgent decisions. It's all very easy to go back with hindsight and consider how we might have made different decisions, but, broadly speaking, there was a lot of agreement here at Holyrood. Yes, briefly. Edward Mountain. Thank you, Member, for giving way. To be able to look back with hindsight means you have to look at all the records that are there and what we're talking about, the fact is that we haven't got them. So how do you square that circle? John Mason. I think the question is relevant records and I don't want to go into all... No, that is what was asked for in February, as I understand it. It was the relevant records, not every cup of tea or coffee or whatever else. To carry on, we might have made different decisions looking back in things, but, broadly speaking, there was a lot of agreement here. Now, as I think members know, the Finance Committee recently carried out an inquiry into Government decision making. We spoke to past and present civil servants and ministers and came up with a number of recommendations, but it seemed clear to me that whatever systems we have, there needs to be some private space to bounce ideas around, to brainstorm and to talk off the record. Yes, as a principal, openness and transparency are good things, but we all need space with family, with friends and with staff where we can let go, think out loud and bounce ideas around. No, not just now. I think that that's what WhatsApp was thought of in that space. So now, how were we using WhatsApp at that time and how do we use it now? So I was looking back at the Covid Committee WhatsApp group from June 2021 onwards and I would like to quote you some of the messages some of the members I see are here today. If anyone would like to read them all, they're very, very welcome to. But I find messages like the one from Murder Fraser. Well done, Siobhan, expertly chaired. Brian Whittle, still in traffic on the M8. Murder Fraser, I'm in a long queue trying to get into the car park. Jim Fairlie, morning all, happy new year to you all. Brian Whittle, running five minutes late and there were quite a few from him like that. So it kind of shows what WhatsApp was being used for and is being used for briefly. I'm very grateful with John Mason to give way on that point but does that not just reinforce what we've already heard in this debate? That understanding the culture that surrounds decision helps you understand the context in which the conclusions were reached. John Mason, I can give you the time, Brian. My thinking is that WhatsApp, ideally, can I speak please? My thinking would be that, ideally, WhatsApp should not be used for decision making, key or relevant or anything else. I would not be surprised if there were no relevant messages on WhatsApp. Now we will see that in due course. But no, I'm sorry, I have given way already. Now I'm fascinated that the Tories are making really what I think is a mountain out of a molehill in this debate today. We could have discussed Israel and Gaza or inflation or college disputes or fire service pay, but no, the Conservatives want to know if Shona Robertson was stuck in the M90 or if Hamza Yousaf wanted chocolate on top of his cappuccino. Now we have several public inquiries going on. Excuse me, Mr Mason, could you resume a seat? The amount of background noise has just escalated. Could I please encourage you to do the courtesy to the member who is speaking to listen to what his contribution is and that same respect will then be afforded to subsequent speakers. John Mason. Thank you. We have several public inquiries going on, and so what is the purpose of these public inquiries? And I would suggest that that is different for different people. Families who have lost a loved one during Covid want to know what happened and why decisions were made. Now I should perhaps declare an interest here in that my mother, aged 93, died in a care home in early 2021. We had very limited visiting during almost a year and I personally felt and continued to feel that that was the right weight of handling things. The care home became my mother's home and the care staff there became close friends to her and frankly she got on better with some of them than she did with the wider family. However, even within my own extended family there would be a variety of opinions as to whether more visiting should have been allowed and I fear there is just no right answer to that. Absolutely many families are looking forward to whatever conclusions the inquiry brings. However, it has to be said that parts of the media and some opposition members have different hopes for the inquiry. Some of them just want juicy gossip to boost their audience numbers while others in here and outside just want to give the SNP and the Scottish Government a kicking. On the subject of transparency it's useful to compare Holyrood to Westminster and elsewhere. For starters we all as MSPs are elected which would seem obvious in the democracy but of course the House of Lords is not elected nor is it at all transparent how people even become members of it and we now have the ridiculous situation where the foreign secretary is in the House of Lords rather than the House of Commons and so cannot be routinely questioned by elected MPs. So in conclusion, yes openness and transparency are good things but there needs to be a balanced struck publishing everything can have a chilling effect and limit fresh thinking there needs to be a space for privacy and confidentiality and if that is not to be what's up then it needs to be somewhere else. The pandemic was perhaps most extraordinary context and situation that any of us will ever have faced in our lives and will ever face again. Thousands of people lost their lives so I'm very sorry but that's not gossip and I think to suggest that that's why this is being brought forward and being discussed by members of this Parliament is frankly casting aspersions on fellow members and I reject as strongly as I can some of the assertions made by the previous member because we have to understand what decisions were made on the basis of what information and against what context because the results of those decisions cost people's lives. We've already heard from Alex Cole-Hamilton about the situation with the care homes. It was perhaps one of the most sensitive periods in the whole pandemic over 3,300 excess deaths occurred in care homes in 2020 and we were told time and time again that a transmission in April was made because we didn't have knowledge. There was not the science to indicate that asymptomatic transmission may be possible or a significant risk. The problem with that is if we look at the timeline of published science and published evidence it doesn't hold up. On 28 January 2020 Jim MacMannaman, an interim clinical director at the Health Protection Scotland attended the second meeting of SAGE on Covid-19 where it was stated that there is limited evidence of asymptomatic transmission but early indications apply, some is occurring. On 19 February, the Japanese Institute of Infectious Diseases suggested asymptomatic transmission on the diamond princess which subsequently resulted in other papers which went on to confirm that the majority of transmissions on the diamond princess were due to asymptomatic transmission. On 5 March that was confirmed in the New England Journal of Medicine by the world's leading journals of medicine. That led on 9 March to the UK Health Minister, Lord Bethel, telling the Lord that large numbers of people are infectious or infected but are completely asymptomatic and never go near a test kit. Quite simply, those sequences of scientific papers, stated positions in public bodies and indeed parliamentary committees contradicts and contrasts with the fact that the First Minister at the time, time and time again said that we did not have the knowledge. Quite simply, what we need to know is this. Was it the case that the Government did not have that knowledge, was not looking at that information at that science, or did it deliberately disregard it and is only by looking at the full context of decision making we can really know that. We need to know whether those hyperlinks to those papers were being shared by officials and ministers within the Government. That is that context. That is the only way we can really understand the nature of the road's decisions and the consequences that resulted. Let's also be clear. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way, but we did know quite a lot at the time. One of the things we knew was that hospitals in Italy were absolutely swamped with people and it did seem to a lot of us, including members across the House, that getting people out of hospital had to be the priority. That time said time and time again that we did not know that asymptomatic transmission was a risk and I think we need to understand whether the Government was taking cognisance of the later science at the time or not. Indeed. Let's call Hamilton. Very grateful if you can give him the time back. Daniel Johnson is quite right. The Minutes of the Covid Advisory Committee of 20 April 2020 couldn't be clearer. They say at one hand that hospitals were screaming about asymptomatic transmission and yet the same meeting was hearing about officials moving people out, untested or tested positive into Scottish care homes. Those two things were known at the same time. We need to understand why that advice was ignored. Daniel Johnson, give you the time back. Indeed, we do. If those facts, if those points raised in those bodies were being discussed in WhatsApp groups, we need to know that. Quite frankly, right now we don't have the confidence as to whether or not they're going to be because we have had Government positions all over the place as to what would be released. We've had the First Minister saying that everything would be released, that there would be absolute open transparency right the way through to the fact that messages were being routinely and systematically deleted. There is at best confusion. So to the heart of the motion here, we need an investigation as to whether or not, willyntingly or unwittingly, the First Minister misled Parliament because, frankly, all of us are profoundly confused as to what the Government was retaining and on what basis. Again, the Government is relying on dancing on the heads of pins on particular words. Time and time again, we hear about relevant information. Quite frankly and simply, it is up to the UK inquiry to decide what is relevant. Why doesn't the Scottish Government trust them? I simply don't understand. It's as though they expect the UK inquiry to break privacy rules, to break the law. They will look at what is handed over. They will judge whether it is relevant. They will judge whether it needs to be redacted. Why don't they trust them? But above all else, we all know in this chamber some simple truths about what happened and we all know that Government decision making shrank to a very narrow number of ministers and close advisers. We all know that most of the time the First Minister and Deputy First Minister under close consultation with key special advisers. I'm not saying that was necessary the wrong thing to do. These were extraordinary times. It was a crisis. But we need to understand what happened. We need to understand whether that cost lives because ultimately we need to learn the lessons. This will not be the last time this country faces a crisis. But unless we learn the lessons lives will be lost again, needlessly or because this Government can't be transparent. Mr Johnson, I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Craig Hoy around six minutes. Thank you very much. Making easy political points is not what constituents want to see from their elected representatives. Let me finish. That's not what they want to see particularly in a debate like this. Douglas Ross's opening comments when he stated about not being party political in this, I would take him on his word at that particular point. Sadly some comments, and certainly some of the barracking from his backbench as the debate isn't on. Sadly it has went against what Douglas Ross said in his opening comments. I'm grateful to Stuart McMillan for giving way. I was genuine that this should be above party politics which is why I think SNP members and Green members should be independently minded and look at the facts. Does he believe that the request from the UK Covid Inquiry in February for all of the messages constituted a request for those messages? Or does he agree with Shona Robison that that only happened in September just a few weeks ago? Stuart McMillan, I can give you the time back. Thank you very much, minister. Mr Ross, I think that the point of being relevant is really important in this. I'm sorry, Mr Ross. We'll have to agree to disagree. The point of order, Daniel Johnson. I seek your guidance. The standing orders are very clear that we must treat each other with respect. To cast aspersions in the motives and whether or not people are presenting facts and arguments on face value, surely members should respect that and consider that other members are speaking in good faith. I thank Daniel Johnson for his point. I think that the debate today is fairly respectful. I will intervene if I do not think that that is the case. I invite Stuart McMillan to continue and give you the time back, obviously. Thank you, minister. Certainly today's debate has put forward what they consider in terms of their opinion, but certainly in my opinion the First Minister and the Scottish Government have been absolutely committed to openness and transparency. It is clear that neither he nor the Deputy First Minister have misled Parliament. The Scottish Government has already provided more than 19,000 documents to the UK inquiry in addition to the 14,000 WhatsApp messages. For absolute clarity, the Scottish Government has and will continue to comply and work with both inquiries. Some will try to suggest that those statements are fair and that the Scottish Government could not be further from the truth. From the belief that my SNP colleagues feel the same, the scrutiny is the bedrock that underlies effective governance. That is why the Scottish Government established the first public inquiry in the UK to examine the response to Covid-19 in December 2021 ahead of the UK Government commencing the UK-wide public inquiry. At the heart of that motion is the Covid-19 pandemic and every single one of us unchanged our lives indefinitely. John Mason spoke about his own family situation. My mum went into a care home just over a year ago, obviously not in the Covid period, but it struck me that the care home that my mother went into, there was no Covid in that care home throughout the whole Covid period. Covid only started to go in once we actually started to go back into a more normal society. Every Government in the world over was taking decisions based upon their own context and in some countries the response was driven by scientific understanding and others ideological agendas. Scientists become the biggest asset to Governments during the pandemic but ultimately it was up to politicians as to what course of action, what guidance and what legislation was introduced in response to Covid-19. John Mason also touched upon the other one. Day in, day out in this chamber and committees in this Parliament ministers were being questioned about what their decisions were and also what they were planning to do going forward. That's why I do believe it's important that we reflect upon those decisions. We can't speak for other nations but I believe that the most important way to recognise the loss and suffering of the people of Scotland and the wider UK population during the pandemic is to learn and to inform the evidence. That also includes the scientific evidence that Daniel Johnson referenced earlier on. The inquiries will help to identify what could have been done better and to improve Government decision making in a pandemic to save lives and to prevent suffering in the future. The Scottish Government has already committed to examining and considering closely the recommendations that both the Scottish and UK public inquiries make. To go back to today's motion and one of my opening statements the Scottish Government has provided already over 19,000 documents to the UK inquiry which is over and above the 14,000 WhatsApp messages handed over. Since December 2022 the Scottish Government has been assisting the inquiry by providing a large volume of evidence to the inquiry team including corporate and individual statements and extensive documentation. The Scottish Government has to date provided 25 detailed corporate statements that have also been involved in the request for 89 individual statements. Liam Kerr. I'm very grateful. Does the member not have a concern at least that it is the Scottish Government making a decision on what is relevant and what is not relevant to disclose? Stuart McMillan. I think that the example that we have heard from John Mason that will probably indicate the issue regarding relevance. Once again let me be clear that many hesitation by former members of the Scottish Government to provide all the information that they hold and when appropriately and legally requested by the UK and Scottish inquiries the Scottish Government has and will continue to co-operate fully. The Deputy First Minister has already set out that in examining the content of WhatsApp messages previously it became clear that they did hold some sensitive personal data which means that under data protection legislation there must be a clear legal basis for providing that information. That's why the Scottish Government requested the section 21 notice which would give that legal basis for the provision. The Scottish Conservatives can't excuse the behaviour and actions of, we've all heard some of the examples that happened during the pandemic down Westminster. Gently I suggest that I would urge them to try to convince their colleagues in Westminster to behave somewhat differently in contrast to the colleagues that we have here in the Scottish Parliament. The reality is that the Scottish Government's message is handed over to the UK Covid-19 inquiry will be startling different to those of Westminster politicians. Unlike the UK Government's attempts to limit the chair of the inquiry Baroness Hallott's request for information the Scottish Government has always committed to fully co-operate with the UK inquiry and also the Scottish public inquiries. Going back to the section 21 notice we received on Monday 30 October an action in line with the UK inquiries deadline of Monday 6 October. The Scottish Government has consistently acted in line with its records management policies and relevant legal obligations with regard to collating and storing corporate information. I truly hope that the public see through some of what we have heard today from some of the Conservatives but also with regard to the motion as nothing for me, I generally believe that it is nothing more than an attempt to deflect from what we have seen in Westminster in comparison to what we have seen here in Scotland. With that, I will close. Thank you. I now call Cree Coy to be followed by Fulton McGregor around five minutes, Mr Coy. Deputy Presiding Officer, this SNP Government rightly and richly deserves the wretched reputation it has earned when it comes to its record on transparency. This secretive Government picks and chooses how and when it engages with issues of significant legal and public interest. It is self-evident and beyond reasonable doubt that Humza Yousaf and Shona Robison misled the Scottish Parliament. They made and repeated false and misleading claims about when the UK Covid inquiry requested crucial WhatsApp messages. Grieving families are rightly demanding answers and they deserve them. But sadly, this Government will not give them all the need to know to bring justice and closure. Transparency and as a result the truth are defined as optional extras in the SNP's cynical political playbook. So let's look at the evidence before us. In June 2021 the UK Government wrote to the Scottish Government requesting that it does not destroy material relevant to the UK Covid inquiry. Two months later Nicola Sturgeon announced that a separate Scottish Covid inquiry where she said nothing quotes will be off limits to the Scottish Government when it comes to providing information. How shallow that sounds now. By December, John Swinney, who now appears as a Victorian bodyguard accompanying the spectral figure of Nicola Sturgeon around this Parliament, said this. I pledge that the Scottish Government will engage as I know this Parliament and everyone in Scotland will to support Lady Poo in this most important inquiry. In August 2022, the Scottish Covid inquiry wrote to the Scottish Government requesting that information relevant to the pandemic is retained. That November, the UK Covid inquiry asked the Scottish Government about potentially relevant messages, including WhatsApp messages during the pandemic. In February 2022 the UK Covid inquiry explicitly asked the Scottish Government for any WhatsApp messages relating to key decisions made during the pandemic. Let's note the wording here relating to that. That means messages involving discussions around and discussion about those decisions even when those decisions were made elsewhere. The fact that decisions may be formally taken in a different forum or in a different context cannot cynically become the Government's default defence for deleting and withholding important WhatsApp messages relating to those decisions. This June, Humza Yousaf said that all material that was asked for by the inquiry would be provided. Over the summer, requests for WhatsApps were sent to individual ministers, former ministers and civil servants within the Scottish Government. Yet, the First Minister and his deputy still claim that they were first requested in September. That was plainly untrue. Their attempt to deflect involves a claim that they had interpreted earlier requests too narrowly. Deputy Presiding Officer, that simply does not stack up. In August the Scottish Government had already confirmed the existence of WhatsApp groups used by the Scottish Government in the UK Covid inquiry. They conceded that they existed but they still wouldn't hand over those messages. For clarity, let's not forget what Humza Yousaf said in June. That WhatsApp messages, e-mails, signal messages, telegram messages or whatever will and I quote absolutely be handed over to the Covid inquiries and handed over to them in full. How can this possibly be consistent with reports that the former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon deleted her WhatsApp messages despite earlier assurance from her to the country? That follows a pattern of deflection, diversion, distraction, deletion and at times outright deceit. Deputy Presiding Officer, a review of similar events proves a pattern of behaviour which supports our motion. SNP Government officials held deposit return scheme meetings verbally to avoid correspondence being obtained of information requests. During Alex Salmond's judicial review the SNP Government's own legal council admitted that they could not advise the court that the Scottish Government had discharged its duty of candor. The Salmond Inquiry Committee found the SNP Government's refusal to hand over documents had impeded its scrutiny function. Nicola Sturgeon admitted that there were no minutes of notes of a crucial meeting with former Ferguson Marine owner Jim McCall. SNP Government refused to reveal the outcome of a bullying probe into one of its own ministers. This month, the Health Secretary Michael Matheson agreed to pay back £11,000 in roaming charges 10 months after they were paid by the taxpayer but only after that scandal hit the headlines. This is the SNP's track record on transparency and they should be ashamed. In conclusion, the Scottish Government's ministerial code said ministers should resign if they knowingly mislead Parliament and we will only know this if Hamza Yousaf and Shona Robison refell themselves to the independent adviser on the ministerial code. Thank you. I now call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Russell Finlay at around six minutes. It has now been nearly four years since the health professionals took notes of a novel virus outbreak in China. In the months that followed, the Governments around the world scrambled to mitigate the health, social and economic effects of this unprecedented situation. Those here in Scotland were asked to make sacrifices to ensure those who were most vulnerable were shielded from the worst of the pandemic before the heroic effort to develop and procure a vaccine was completed. Despite these efforts many families found themselves bereaved through this pandemic and my sympathies to John Mason who shared his own story today. Many more are still suffering the effects of long Covid and the overall pandemic and repeated lockdowns has taken a toll on the health, education and wellbeing of the population which is currently difficult to quantify. Because of this severe effect that the pandemic has had, it is right that we learn from the evidence of that time to find out what we could have done better. This will also improve Government decision making in the potential future pandemic to save lives and prevent suffering. Not only will this help us all in the future but it is also an important way to recognise the loss and suffering of the people of Scotland and of the wider UK population during the last few years. It was for these reasons that the Scottish Government established the first public inquiry in the UK to examine the response to Covid-19 in December 21 which was ahead of the UK Government commencing the UK-wide public inquiry. Showing the initiative to establish this inquiry underlines the Scottish Government's commitment to openness and transparency and recognises that scrutiny is a bedrock that underlies effective governance. Douglas Ross The member has just said that scrutiny underlines the integrity of Government decisions. Does he not then welcome the scrutiny that would be offered by the independent adviser on the ministerial code to either prove or otherwise the version of events of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister? I thank the member for that intervention. He has heard what the Deputy First Minister said and I welcome her response to that. On this point, the Scottish Government have and will continue to co-operate with both the Scottish and the UK-wide inquiry on the pandemic. A huge volume of data has already been provided by the UK-wide inquiry. Nearly 20,000 documents have been passed on and that's not including the nearly 15,000 WhatsApp messages that have been sent in addition to those documents. As you can imagine, that's a huge amount of data and in managing this data the Scottish Government has consistently acted in line with the data management policies and relevant legal obligations concerning the collecting and keeping of this information. The Scottish Government records that ensuring material relevant to either of the Covid inquiries is retained. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of data storage and records management processes have been established for recording decisions made by ministers and officials which form part of the Scottish Government corporate record. Importantly, this also covers messaging applications such as WhatsApp which has been a key talking point in this debate thus far. I have already taken one, apologies Mr Greene. Indeed, the nuance in this debate centres on the requesting of a section 21 notice with regard to WhatsApp messages. The Deputy First Minister has already clarified that personal data was present in the data and as such, a clear legal basis was needed to provide that data. Following the data protection guidelines the Scottish Government requested the section 21 notice which was received just over two weeks ago. This action was to comply with the data protection act 2018 using mechanisms found in the inquiries act 2005. The Scottish Government confirmed with the deadline to provide the messages to the inquiry and all messages were given to the inquiry on the 6th of November. I cannot like to make some progress. Any assertations about these messages may or may not contain is conjecture at this point and it is important that all of those in the chamber and beyond allow the inquiry to determine the importance of the content of these messages. The bottom line is that the Scottish Government has acted legally and has and will continue to co-operate fully with both inquiries. I should also say that the readiness of the Scottish Government to hand over WhatsApp messages should be commended by everyone in this chamber and I would maybe just gently say to the members on my left that everybody, all Governments involved in the inquiry should show the same readiness because at the end of the day what we all must remember is that both inquiries are about the real people who want answers. The real peoples, businesses and organisations in our constituencies who were affected by a whole array of decisions made or not made as the case may be. Those in care homes have already been discussed. Children in schools, those suffering, I'm not taking any more adventures, those suffering from long Covid, businesses that closed and never recovered. Those are the people that we all must keep in our minds. There should be no party politics here. We have heard this before. There should be absolutely no party politics in this debate at all and the inquiries should be allowed to do their work and get the answers that the public deserve and need. Thanks. Thank you Mrs McGregor. Russell Finlay to be followed by Claire Adamson around five minutes. Thank you. Today the Parliament is choosing its time to talk about something that matters and has the power to do something about. We are talking about Government secrecy specifically about the desperate lengths the SNP go to in order to shut down legitimate and important public scrutiny. They should have preserved and handed over their WhatsApp messages to Covid inquiry but instead they have chosen to be slippery and evasive. This all feels familiar. This is not the first time the SNP have run for the shadows when faced with the disinfecting sunlight of scrutiny. It was the exact same playbook they used during the Alex Salmond inquiry. Now as then they hide behind process. They delay, dodge and stonewall. They prevaricate, misremember and misrepresent. They deploy sophistry and selective amnesia, bad faith and bluster. Point blank refusing to do the right thing. It's a broad spectrum of deceit from the political equivalent of the dog ate my homework right through to a low cunning that would make Machiavelli blush. It was as painful and infuriating to watch then as a member of the public as it is now as an MSP. Back then they failed alleged victims of sexual harassment by their former leader. Now they are failing grieving families who lost loved ones to Covid. Both groups treated with disrespect considered to be of less value to an SNP that will always prioritise the good of the party over the common good. Let's compare events with the Salmond inquiry they promised to co-operate fully, they promised transparency, they promised to freely hand over any and all material just as they now do with the Covid inquiry. But what's happened then and what's happening now? Back then Nicola Sturgeon held numerous meetings with Salmond while he was being investigated over sexual harassment complaints. No records were taken or they may have been destroyed. We don't know for sure. And now, Sturgeon and others may have reportedly deleted what's app messages. We don't know how many messages, we don't know what they said, it's likely that the people of Scotland will never know. With the Salmond inquiry the SNP tried to prevent the release of documents. The inquiry complained of being obstructed. Let's not forget this included SNP MSPs and the SNP convener. For the first time ever Parliament had to resort to using a section 23 order to force the release of documents. With the Covid inquiry we see the same secretive agenda. He evidence has to be dragged out of him. The inquiry has been asking for what's app messages for more than a year. Then there are the shifting sands, the changing of stories. In the Salmond inquiry four senior Government officials had to correct false statements. The SNP's then chief executive was accused of perjury after contradicting his own evidence three times. In relation to Covid Humza Yousaf, who really should be here today and Shona Robison have been forced to change their story after the inquiry demanded that they correct the record to this Parliament. Then there are the stalling tactics. In the Salmond inquiry they delayed everything until the last minute. Access to crucial legal advice was refused time and time again in defiance of two votes in here. It was only when my party brought a vote of no conference in John Swinney then Deputy First Minister that some of the advice was finally released. We see the same with the Covid inquiry. Now as then it is up to the Scottish Conservatives to use every parliamentary lever available to us. Now as then the SNP have misled and disrespected Parliament they also disrespect the people of Scotland. So MSPs from every party and including the SNP can today join us in holding them to account by backing our motion. I'd like to start with a quote, I was a bit worried earlier on I had a lot of my speech Alex Cole-Hamilton had used in his speech but it's a quote from Nicola Sturgeon round about the start of the Covid crisis. I understand because I'm First Minister leading a government how difficult and unprecedented this situation is we are all trying to make the best decisions we can undoubtedly get things wrong along the way as every Government across the world will be and I've been very clear about that from the outset. I'll make mistakes everybody involved in leading the responses will make mistakes but it's really important that we take the best decisions we can at every single stage and to learn from that as we go. I remember that time so vividly because it is such a profound effect on me on my constituents on my family on my friends and my relatives who died at that time in difficult circumstances and that's what we should be talking about today it's about the people and the effect that Covid had on them I remember sitting in a room upstairs with many of the people that are in this chamber today with briefings from Jason Leitch from the chief medical officer who were open and transparent willing to answer any of the questions in the rooms that we had about the policies that the Scottish Government were taking to try and keep people safe now I don't remember anyone at that time making comments that they distrusted the chief medical officer Jason Leitch were not all thinking that we were in this together and I remember that there were never any suggestions that there was going to be a policy to get herd immunity and that the bodies could file high at that time everybody was concentrating on what the inquiry is about and what today should have been about in this Parliament people getting the answers that they needed and that the learning from this experience can be taken forward because we don't know when there might be another crisis like this and there might be another pandemic now the tone of this debate has been completely wrong completely wrong there's a pantomime villain being sought from across the opposition benches but what is in truth is this is just Covid to work differently to communicate differently and to try and do the best that they could so my team introduced WhatsApp we were trying to do the very best to ensure that we still were able to provide a service to our constituents in the most difficult of circumstances the Scottish Government is complying with the inquiry it has already provided 18,000 documents in addition to 14,000 WhatsApp messages in line with their own policy on how decision making should have been recorded at that time and I think reflect I can't believe we're hearing this I remember when there was a crisis at that time when Catherine Calder would a mistake that was unforgivable and she lost her job over it and at the same time what we were seeing were family trips to Bernard Castle and treating people with absolute contempt and I know that the WhatsApp messages that have come out in the Covid inquiry from what the atmosphere was at Downing Street will be really hard for the Conservative benches and really not edifying in any way whatsoever to see the contempt in which some of the civil servants were treating the politicians a contempt in which some of the decisions were being made and the attitude that the individual people affected by this were not being given the prominence that they deserved so there's been a lot said today about the context and the nature in which these decisions were being made and I know there are people that won't agree with me but I believe that the context of the decisions that were made in Scotland with the team of medical experts that we had at that time and the transparency she showed every single day standing up to scrutiny of the press in marked contracts to Boris Johnson at the time that those decisions were made in the very best interests of the people of Scotland but that's not for us to judge it's not for the people in this bench it's not for the people in those benches to judge it's for the people of Scotland to look at what happened and to take their own decisions about who they trust who they did trust at that time where they were looking to get their information from and it wasn't the briefings from Downing Street that's absolutely true Presiding Officer I don't think this has helped the families at all affected by this and I regret that that's had to happen here this afternoon this has been a pantomine it's been a look for a pantomine villain that doesn't exist it's been unplausible it's been political point scoring from the party that partied all the way through Covid thank you Presiding Officer thank you Ms Adamson I now call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Emma Harper around six minutes Mr Whitfield I'm very grateful Deputy Presiding Officer and it is a pleasure to take part in this debate this afternoon and if I can find agreement it is that this is about the people this is about the people of Scotland and to agree with Fulton MacGregor this is not party politics this is at its foundation what we stood to be parliamentarians about what we encompass in our standing orders about events taking place in public what we encompass in our guidance to MSPs on their general conduct and their ministerial code seeks to embody in what we expect to see from our government and it goes back to 1995 it goes back to when the standards in public life committee were founded chaired by Lord Nolan and they were asked to say why is it that the public are losing confidence in politicians and that committee sat and it took evidence and before in all honesty a professional political life in 1995 they founded the seven principles that are drawn to the attention of MSPs if not quite on the first day that you come to this chamber certainly in that first week of induction the same seven principles that are pointed out by our councillors who serve in local authorities to our MPs who go to Westminster within the health boards within the emanations of the state of what the expectation is on you and speak for people or a subset of the people of Scotland be it at a constituency level or be it at a regional level it talks about selflessness it talks about integrity it talks about objectivity objectivity that were impartial that we are fair and we judge on merit and that we use the best evidence and without discrimination it talks about accountability and I am grateful to the Government and the Government for allowing my intervention because holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and their actions and they must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this it is not just about taking decisions it is not just about taking the right decision it is about being open to saying I took this decision Alex Cole-Hamilton I am very grateful to Martin Whitfield for taking the intervention does he agree with me that Clare Adamson's speech just there reflected a time where I think that the First Minister had a certain degree of latitude in this chamber for the decisions that she took a blank check as it were because we were in uncharted and scary waters and that as a result of that blank check she should with confidence provide all of the material around the decisions that she took because there should be nothing to hide I am very grateful for that intervention and indeed the circumstances of Covid put to test the democratic settlement that you have with the electorate and with the country and I think it proves the worth of those Nolan principles that it is in the very hardest of moments that you need to look back at what makes it different to other less democratic states that makes it different from a dictatorship it is the ability to be accountable it is the ability to be open it's the ability to be honest and it is the ability to show leadership and we've heard on many occasions across this chamber in discussions within this parliament about the role of leadership that we are leaders in our community we turn to our young people and ask them to be leaders in the school the Nolan principles require holders of public office should exhibit these principles those I've mentioned in their own behaviour they should actively promote robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs and that is important because if we look at the Scottish ministerial code the first minister our current first minister echoed previous ministerial codes but said and I quote as first minister I have promised to lead Scotland in the interests of all our people the people that Clare Adamson spoke about and work to earn and this is the important bit re-earn the respect and trust of the people of Scotland goes on that is why I am pleased to issue these ministerial codes which sets the highest standards of propriety and transparency for government ministers all Scottish ministers including myself are bound by their terms to ensure integrity accountability and honesty at every level of leadership and I will lead by example the key message when the Nolan principles were reviewed was that many of those whose integrity have been called into question in recent months and years seemed to have behaved inappropriately not because they were unaware of what was expected the Nolan principles but because they did not find it expedient high standards of behaviour need to be understood as a matter of personal responsibility the debate today speaks to that the debate today speaks to why we sit in this parliament speaks to what the Scottish Government owe the people that Clare Adamson spoke about Lord Evans the current chair has said the damage done to the trust and confidence that the public have in those in political and public life has been significant well let's end it now here in Scotland let us show that we stand by those Nolan principles even when it is not I am grateful to you Emma Harper to be followed by Rose McCall around six minutes just listening to what has been said so far I want to make a few key points in this debate and what Clare Adamson said about what the former First Minister said is absolutely relevant and appropriate and I think we absolutely must remember the work of Nicola Sturgeon and Jean Freeman and Jason Leitch and Gregor Smith they put work in every day when we were witnessing what was happening on our television screens about the pandemic across the globe and I can see already folk are going to be on their feet every two minutes no matter what we say the first thing that is vital that we learn from and reflect on is our experience of the pandemic and we retain answers for those who lost loved ones over the course of the pandemic and we have already heard members reflect on their own experience of losing loved ones and I think we need to make sure that we help families that are still grieving absolutely and it's so important that we make sure that the inquiries both the Scottish one and the UK inquiries go ahead and are clear and transparent and engaging because I worked as a nurse during the pandemic giving vaccines to colleagues and also members of the public so this was during the time when we had lockdown just after lockdown we had the virus the first Covid vaccines we were right there on the front line so I think we need to remember what happened back then so that we can look at see how we can improve the way that we tackle any future outbreaks of whatever virus and whatever pandemic whatever crisis we face the people who lost their lives are not just statistics and our condolences should again go to all the victims of Covid-19 I will take an intervention Alex Cole-Hamilton I'm very grateful to Emma Harper for giving away she's right, those people are not just statistics they have families and those families are looking for answers those answers are not forthcoming and will not be forthcoming unless we have a complete picture of the backroom discussions that underpinned all of the decisions that she's described Emma Harper one of the things that I was reflecting on about this and about the messages is that the Scottish Government has a policy for mobile phones and records management and that was introduced is also the responsibility I'm going to read from it right here that it does not change the responsibility within the Scottish Government to maintain complete and comprehensive records of key conversations and decisions so all of that information is already there so I think if I move on to my second point Presiding Officer is that the Scottish Government is committed to openness and transparency and recognises that scrutiny is the bedrock that underlines effective governance and Stuart McMillan mentioned that as well and it's a point that has been evidenced and emphasised by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister as well as other ministers and officials within the Scottish Government indeed the fact that the Scottish Government was the first to establish an independent public inquiry in the UK is testament to the importance of the Scottish Government that the Scottish Government puts on scrutiny Presiding Officer the most important way to recognise the loss and suffering of the people of Scotland and the wider UK population during this pandemic is to learn from the evidence and both inquiries will help what could have been done differently and they will serve to improve Government decision making in any future pandemic or any other crisis and we want to make sure that we can focus on how we can save lives and prevent suffering in the future as the First Minister has said the Scottish Government will examine and consider closely the recommendations that both the Scottish and the UK public inquiries make we need to let the inquiries progress that would be the normal thing to do to allow the inquiries to progress contrary to what the Conservative Scottish Government has and will continue to fully comply with both inquiries Scottish ministers, including the First and Deputy First Minister and officials have already provided a large volume of information and members have outlined that already and we know that the Scottish Government has today provided 25 detailed corporate statements and has been involved in the request for 89 individual statements in support of module 2A in turning to the Scottish Government's amendment there has never been any hesitation by former members of the Scottish Government to provide any and all information they hold and again this is crucially important in order to learn lessons and understand how the handling of pandemics can be improved in the future I'm conscious of time and I'm conscious of the constant from over there because this is just something that I'm concerned also about is the former Prime Minister, the UK Prime Minister didn't only drag the UK inquiry through court but Boris Johnson has still refused to hand over his own whatsapp messages and unlike the UK Government's attempts to also limit the chair of the inquiry Barney's Halets request for information the Scottish Government has already committed to fully cooperate with the UK inquiry point of order I think it should go on record that the chunkering that the member referred to was actually members trying to intervene in a debate when interventions weren't being taken not chunkering and I think it's important that's recorded thank you Mr Halper Johnston it's not a point of order your comments are on the record Ms Harper you have concluded yes I have concluded Presiding Officer thank you I call on Ross McCall to be followed by Ben Macpherson thank you Presiding Officer I would like to take my five minutes to highlight to the chamber just why we should be debating deleted messages, why trust in this process should not and cannot be eroded and disappointing as it is that this motion is needed in the first place that any misleading of this Parliament should be taken with the utmost severity we focus on the co-operate 19 pandemic and rightly so a new viral infection that hit the world and took loved ones from us grieving families from government decisions made on how to deal with the pandemic and the many ramifications of those choices people all over the country put their faith and trust in their government to see them through a global infection they trusted the people elected to this place to make decisions to keep them safe not decisions for political gain or for self-promotion but decisions that follow science and that were altruistic at heart that's the only way that people can accept the unintended consequences from the restrictions imposed my father was diagnosed with esophagal cancer in April 2020 he passed away in October of that year as the cancer had spread to his lungs and his liver in any other time he would have been given instant treatment, exploratory processes would have been administered and the chances of prolonging his life for even a short time would have been discussed in his case they were not the country was in lockdown Covid effects had altered the priorities of our NHS the treatment offered was curtailed and he instantly went to management not medicine my mum living in a different council and health board region to me was left to carry the burden of this without my in-person support now I am not unique this happened to people across the country and just like me many could not travel to see dying loved ones under decisions made in Scotland by this SNP run Scottish Government these people deserve accurate and truthful information and answers from a full and transparent Covid enquiry my mum certainly does any ambiguity or lack of transparency does all the grieving families a disservice whether they are grieving from Covid-19 itself or other diseases affected by changes in NHS practices the people deserve to know the whole truth and that means all forms of communication trivial or not need to be assessed and their relevancy accounted if any further clarity is needed on that fact in June of this year first minister agreed when he said to ensure that there is simply no doubt whatsoever any material that is asked for what's that messages emails, signal messages telegram messages or whatever will absolutely be handed over to the Covid enquiries and handed over in full that statement must be followed if we are to know if the unintended consequences affecting on-going health treatments and children's development and people's mental health and disrupted education for a generation of young people were all worth it and the many thousands of families who suffered loss will get the answers they deserve so why when the UK Covid enquiry explicitly asked for any what's that messages in February 2023 were they not provided in full I will give way she accept that they only asked in February 23 for relevant messages that's all and again we're right back to relevant messages it is up to the enquiry to decide what is relevant why 8 months later in October 2023 did the Scottish Government force the UK enquiry to issue a section 21 notice to retrieve messages why were the messages deleted by individuals why was the first minister's statement of June 2023 not followed to the letter this is not just a matter of process this is about people and their need for answers presiding officer when my husband had a stroke in another lockdown period he was in another council and health board region for over three months so we couldn't see each other lockdown restrictions also meant that I shouldn't have crossed the boundary between 4th valley and Lothian health boards but given that restrictions also meant I wasn't allowed to pass a bag of clothing from one person to another for fear of contamination I was advised by doctors at that time it would be okay to drive to the hospital as long as I came alone wiped down the bag war gloves and a face mask now I consider myself lucky because I could in a small way let my husband know that I was there for him others were not so lucky people in hospitals were left isolated lonely and in some cases scared sitting in a hospital chair in a hospital gown alone too many people over Scotland coped with the decisions made in this place are living with the consequences of decisions made in this place and lost family members for decisions made in this place they deserve accurate and truthful information to be provided and any misleading statements given to parliament by the first minister and the deputy first number do not only break the ministerial code but they shame the Scottish people and they mistrust they misplaced their trust and therefore I support the motion in Douglas Ross's neck I call Ben Macpherson the final speaker in the open debate thank you Presiding Officer today of course we are discussing very serious matters and I commend colleagues for their contributions some of which have been very powerful as I think back to the period of the pandemic like colleagues I recall and think of all those who suffered in my constituency and across the country particularly those who lost loved ones in our morning every day for those people in their lives I think of those in the NHS who had to cope with the pandemic at the time those who worked in our care homes those who were lonely the economic disruption it was all very difficult for everyone and because of those circumstances and the way they affected everyone and made such significant impacts on people's lives that they are still living with today it is absolutely vital that we learn from those difficult years and reflect on our experience and that is why the Scottish Government established the first public inquiry in the UK to examine the response to Covid-19 in December 2021 that was ahead of the UK Government commencing the UK wide public inquiry and both are extremely important because the best way to recognise and the most appropriate way to respond to the loss and suffering of the people of Scotland and the wider UK population is to learn and we learn from the evidence those inquiries are being undertaken with diligence and extremely high levels of commitment and will help identify what could have been done better and to improve Government decision making in a pandemic if there is one in future years to save lives and prevent further suffering and there are also lessons to learn when it comes to responding to other circumstances Of course the decision making process in the UK was initially based on the advice of Sage as others have said and it was a very integrated network of advice and information that was passed across the UK nations It has been stated by ministers that the Scottish Government will examine closely the recommendations that both the Scottish and UK public inquiries make and that is something that we should all be focused on learning from not just from those recommendations in those inquiries but also to consider what we can learn from elsewhere The Scottish Government has been clear that it will continue to co-operate fully with both inquiries as the Deputy First Minister stated earlier in today's debate that the Scottish Government has already provided a large volume of information to both the Scottish and UK inquiries and will continue to provide more as appropriate As has been set out the Scottish Government has already provided over 19,000 documents to the UK inquiry in addition to thousands of WhatsApp messages and I think the fact that 19,000 documents have already provided shows and demonstrates the diligence that the civil service paid to making sure that decisions were recorded and that advice that was considered was appropriately recorded, as you would expect I'm going to take one Mr Sarwar Can I thank Min McPherson for giving away about also the tone and manner in which he has addressed the debate I think it's very welcome Would he agree though that ultimately it is for the judge rather than the participants or the subjects of any inquiry to judge to decide what is relevant and what is not I do and I think there's a shared position on that in the room but also I would emphasise that the Scottish Government is committed to openness and transparency and every day responds to scrutiny whether it's freedom of information request and I'm sure the minister will have some points when he's summing up there's a really robust professional process within the Government that on a regular basis and especially during the pandemic is making sure that it's responding to the requirements on it and you know these points around record management are extremely important and it's right that we're thinking about them together and it's right that we are also doing that in a time where let's remember as others rightly stated during this debate there was a change in technology and the circumstances of the pandemic were all relevant to the considerations here Presiding Officer in my final moments in this debate I just want to focus on something that's not being said by others and that's this the civil service did a remarkable job during the pandemic it was longer every week with commitment, tenacity innovation and determination to serve the people of Scotland along with other services of course like the NHS and all the services that we rightly commend but let's not forget that the commitment that Government officials made whether it was making sure that decision making happened in a timious manner by briefing ministers as best as they could and the scientists that were involved in that whether it was working with local authorities to get money to businesses all the different considerations that took place required the highest level of public service and I think we should remember that when we are in this chamber and considering these important points Thank you we move to winding up speeches Jackie Baillie, up to six minutes please Thank you, Presiding Officer the benefit of being in this Parliament for so long as you get to see patterns of behaviour over time the last 16 years of the SNP have indeed been instructive what I have learnt is that these are not isolated incidents or even at the most generous interpretation mistakes this is a systematic approach to Government and it is an approach characterised by secrecy or transparency so a bit of reflection might be useful let me take you back to the Parliament's committee on handling of harassment complaints for shorthand the salmon committee the war that went on to get information from the Government WhatsApp and text messages discovered only after several requests the lack of information on the legal advice taken by the Scottish Government in which council said the case should be abandoned because they were going to lose never mind the cost of the taxpayer months of argument and ultimately motions of no confidence in this chamber for John Swinney to finally give a site of some of the documents required and I have to say the approach to the Covid inquiry bears remarkable similarity the Government tell us how many thousands of pages they have supplied but not the quality of the information with the salmon inquiry thousands of pages we were provided with were either blank or so heavily redacted all you could see were black lines secrecy is the SNP's modus operandi look at Ferguson's and the award of that disastrous shipbuilding contract information withheld from the Parliament's audit committee or what about circularity Scotland created so ministers did not need to be answerable for decisions about the bottle return scheme that goes on I am reminded that Nicola Sturgeon first committed to a public inquiry in May 2020 and I commend her for that she knew then and subsequently confirmed that she would disclose all Government emails private emails and WhatsApp messages to the inquiry and frankly I find it appalling that this has not been complied with and that she appears to have manually deleted messages a point on which she is unwilling to confirm or deny that deleting messages though has been going on on an industrial scale and not just by politicians we have Jason Leitch the national clinical director was at it too so let me just ask how many messages from Jason Leitch or Nicola Sturgeon or John Swinney or Humza Yousaf have been transcribed to the official record as the Deputy First Minister said they would be then there is the First Minister and his old mobile phone and I'm delighted that he found it and is handing it over can he possibly tell us through whoever is replying for the Government were the inquiry told that they were initially missing and is it only because he discovered an old mobile that he can now provide messages and can ministers hand over emails from their SNP email accounts I know they use them as a means of avoiding scrutiny have any of these being handed over to the inquiry and from which ministers and special advisers now I welcome the provision of all legal advice being handed over to the UK inquiry can the Deputy First Minister confirm that this is without qualification after all it should be for the inquiry to judge what is relevant not those who have a vested interest in protecting themselves in terms of the outcome and it's not just individuals it's the Government itself and I understand the key document on the decision to send older people untested into care homes appears to have gone missing I genuinely think that the SNP Government particularly ministers have decided and this is how cynical it is that to be criticised for being secretive and not sharing information is better than to reveal the content of those messages it is so disappointing that the Scottish Government have told half truths and had to be invited to correct the record by the UK Covid inquiry it is embarrassing as Amaranwa representing the family said the Scottish Government's failure to provide clarity constant changing timelines and excuses combined with the redundant excuse of confidentiality that you are obstructing the search for truth I couldn't agree with him more but I want to turn to the comments made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in this chamber in May and at least twice in June the First Minister promises to be open and transparent it will all be absolutely handed over to the Covid inquiries and handed over to them in full in October in full became any potentially relevant information with the greatest respect that for the inquiry to decide is absolutely essential and it's not for government to decide and it's clear from the exchanges on 31 October and 2 November that there are entirely contradictory timelines and information provided by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister it would appear to anybody watching this that the ministerial code has been breached the question for me is was it a genuine mistake or is it a deliberate attempt to cover up and I have to say given what I have seen over the years secrecy trumps all with this government this should be referred for investigation to consider whether Parliament has been misled Presiding Officer this is an important debate it is about accountability and standards of public office as Martin Whitfield spoke about and importantly it is about getting truth and justice for Covid bereaved families for the older people discharged to care homes without testing to the families unable to visit loved ones in care for the children whose education was compromised and are still suffering the consequences of that today all of them deserve answers this is a matter of trust and accountability that I am so disappointed with the Deputy First Minister's amendment it fails to apologise or even acknowledge that they have given incorrect information to this chamber it is complacent and it is insulting to those who loved ones I finished by repeating what Anas Sarwar said at the end of his comments what do the SNP have to hide? I call on George Adam up to seven minutes minister Presiding Officer I have spent most of my time trying to available going through the various points brought up by colleagues here today but Presiding Officer can I start with the reassurances that the Deputy First Minister have provided over some time now are compelling and informed during this debate Fulton MacGregor brought up an extremely important point where it is up to both inquiries as they are the ones who will make the decisions and the answers that everyone else is looking for all communications that we have demonstrate the care and close attention being given to the huge task of ensuring that both inquiries receive the information that they have requested and require in order to provide comfort to those whom Covid-19 hit hardest Like the Deputy First Minister I am thoughtful of the impact of all our discussions I have on the Scottish Covid bereaved families and my thoughts are with all those who experienced a loss during the pandemic Clare Adamson in an extremely powerful speech mentioned about how it was people and not statistics that we were talking about and in this debate I think it is extremely important that we talk about the sheer humanity of the situation and every single one of us Presiding Officer has a Covid story and everyone has as we have heard today someone in their family who was affected with in my case it was two years ago my mother-in-law ended up in the Royal Alexander hospital and it is probably two years to the past couple of weeks since we had our funeral and I am aware how triggering these debates are and we have to be respectful we have to do it in a way because in all honesty I care about what these people think about what went on, I think they are the most important and these families are the most important people in this debate so like Clare Adamson I am 100% behind that idea and everything that we do here is important that we remember that and as we have heard and discussed at some length the importance of good records management practice are keystone in delivering his Parliament to this Government such practice is auditable and regulated requirement of government and governance allows our data and information to be in order to ensure that we can provide robust evidence of decisions taken and the Scottish Government has high standards of records management and we will continue to ensure that good practice and transparency is at the forefront of our records management I will take the members I am grateful to the minister for giving way Can I ask if ministers or special advisers or officials failed to submit any or all communications to that record management system what sanction would they face? As I have answered in numerous times when I have been asked this question with regards to record management system all decisions and all practices are actually done through the Scots IT system there is no decisions taken any other way so in order for us to make a decision and take something forward it would have to go through that process your argument is actually not relevant in the scenario Presiding Officer I would like to highlight some of the important work in relation to transparency that the Scottish Government has delivered as together this will show how this Government is committed to and is delivering on being open and transparent The Scottish Government's digital strategy is committed to increasing access to data and to delivering anethical digital nation and as part of this commitment has been considering how data ethics play a role in Government's use of data this work has been involved in discussions with the public as well as academics understand how the Scottish Government can increase transparency in the use of our data Presiding Officer the Scottish Government is further committed to open Government principles of transparency, accountability and public participation as a clear commitment to transparency we are currently delivering Scotland's third open Government national action plan in partnership with civil society our action plans work to ensure that the trust, integrity and person centred approaches are central to the function of this Government I'll take Mr Ross' point Douglas Ross I'm grateful to the minister for giving way when he's speaking about openness and transparency I asked the Deputy First Minister if the investigation which the First Minister launched four weeks ago by the Solicitor General and by the Permanent Secretary had been delivered she didn't cover that point in her remarks can you say if those reports have been delivered to the Scottish Government and what they said Currently it's on-going Mr Ross and if I can continue on open and transparency of Government our current commitments are areas in which civil society and members of the public have told us the on-going promotion of transparency participation, inclusivity and accountability is extremely important to them an example of the work we have been delivering in collaboration with civil society I'll draw your attention to fiscal transparency commitment among other things it's currently in the process of developing a fiscal transparency portal to make the Scottish budget information more accessible to the public the platform will support understanding around how public money is raised and used by bringing together and presenting our fiscal information in a more accessible, open and understandable way a time when misinformation is on the rise I want to emphasise that the Scottish Government recognises the importance of political integrity and transparency and takes these issues extremely seriously our recent FOI performance has affected this commitment information about the work of Government can be obtained by members of this Parliament through responses to parliamentary questions and by all citizens through the exercise of their rights under FOI law business across the Scottish Government have worked hard to complete our recovery from the delivery challenges for the pandemic and returned to target performance levels for FOI by increasing our data tracking we have been able to identify earlier where delays might arise and as a result have averaged an FOI response rate of 97 per cent since June given that our request numbers have increased by 60 per cent since the pandemic our FOI performance is now better than at any point since the intervention began and we will continue to work to do including improving our training and further development our network of case handles and planning that is under way and I'm very pleased to see that this achievement recognised in the progress report from the former Scottish Information Commissioner last month David Hamilton when I met him last week Finally, Presiding Officer I would like to finish by reassuring the chairman of our commitment to do all we can to ensure that the important work of both inquiries can proceed at pace and that we have a robust process in place to do so Thank you and I call on Murdo Fraser to wind up the debate up to nine minutes Mr Fraser Thank you, Presiding Officer I will sum up the key points in this debate, as I should say at the outset I share the disappointment of Douglas Ross and others that the First Minister has not been here to listen to this debate which is fundamental to his leadership of the Scottish Government and indeed issues of integrity and transparency that Mr Adam just referred to but let's just remind ourselves why this debate is so important Over the last couple of weeks I've listened to some of the testimonies that were acquired by those who lost loved ones due to Covid and lost loved ones who died in care homes during lockdown restrictions. Some of these stories were truly heart-rending and they struck a chord with me because my mother died in a care home in February 2021 during the second Covid lockdown and from the point we had to take her into a care home in December 2020 when we realised as a family 24-hour care that she required we did not see her we could not speak to her the only point we could get into seeing her was after she had the stroke that would kill her and she was lying unconscious and like many other families we had no contact with my mother over the last few months of her life and many others faced similar situations we've heard from Mr Adam just now we've heard from Ross McAuliffe hear from others about the situations that others experienced it is my view and it's just my view but it is my view that the cruelty of that situation in not allowing people to see their loved ones in the last few weeks, months or even years of their lives was a greater cruelty than exposing them to the risk that they might catch Covid and end those lives sooner I know if I'd have been able to ask my mother she would have shared that view that I hold many other relatives because I've heard their testimonies weekly we'd share that particular view I also know that others will take a different view and I would agree with the point that John Mason made in the debate we were in unknown territory we didn't know what we were up against we didn't know what the risks were and I don't blame anyone for the decisions that they were taken because we didn't know what those risks were but I do hope what these inquiries can actually be about is learning lessons getting answers as to why those decisions were taken my mother wasn't given a choice other relatives were not given a choice those decisions were taken for her and for us by the governments of the day and what I want to yes I'll give way to Mr Johnson Daniel Johnson First of all, I'm very grateful to the member for going I pay tribute to him for his candor and obviously very difficult personal circumstances but does he agree with me that it's really important to understand what basis those decisions were made what information was being shared both formally and informally which is why so many having these WhatsApp messages is so critical so we can understand what people knew and also what they didn't know that they should have done Murdo Fraser I'm grateful to Mr Johnson for that point I was reciting the point that I was about to make as to why these inquiries and why the issue of transparency and so if we come up against the situation again in the future we've actually learned from this experience and we know why these decisions were taken and we know should we have to take these decisions again how we weigh that these harms to people, the harms in education the harms in health we've heard about from others as against the risks from Covid or another pandemic so transparency is all important so let's just remind ourselves of the timeline set out by Douglas Ross at the very start of this debate it was back in June 2021 the UK Government wrote to the Scottish Government requesting that all material was protected given that a UK Covid inquiry was going to be a setup in August 2021 Nicola Sturgeon, the then First Minister announced a separate Scottish inquiry would be established and said nothing would be off-limits in December 2021 the then Deputy First Minister John Swinney announced the formal establishment of the Scottish Inquiry and Pledge Scottish Government support and in February 2023 the UK Covid inquiry formally requested all messages including WhatsApps from the Scottish Government and the wording of that request is fundamentally important to the point that we're making today I'm just going to quote it on the parliamentary written answer from Shona Robison on 8 November the Covid inquiry said this please provide any communications relating to key decisions including internal and external emails text messages or WhatsApp messages on Scottish Government and private or personal devices held by the Scottish Government any communications I think that is unequivocal in its wording despite what we've heard from the Scottish Government and we know that it has followed up with further requests in July, August and September 2023 among others then on 31 October 2023 Shona Robison told the Scottish Government this the UK inquiry asked in June for some range of all WhatsApp and similar groups relating to co-ordination logistics and day-to-day communication greatly expanding the scope of what the Scottish Government needed accordingly to collate and process that request was followed in September by a request for the actual messages that were exchanged within those groups and then Humza Yousaf on 2 November told this Parliament it is crucial to say when the UK Government inquiry asked us in June for details of the various WhatsApp groups concerning Covid-19 it did not request the messages themselves the messages were asked for in September just a matter of weeks ago that's what the official report says now I cannot see and that is reconciled with the wording of the request in February 2023 from the UK Government asking for any communications of the Deputy First Minister can provide clarification as to why she thinks these two positions can be reconciled by myself I'll give way I was very clear in my speech today that the information set out in the statement of course related to the key decision making interpretation of those original messages if you look at my statement I was very clear that there had been previous requests by the UK inquiry the acknowledgement the First Minister and I have made is that looking back to the wording of that request that it was too limited in interpretation would Murdo Fraser though accept now that all of that information that has been provided is now for the inquiry to decide both inquiries about the information provided to them the scope of it and the adequacy of it Murdo Fraser well that's a very long intervention and a very unconvincing one to the Deputy First Minister it doesn't answer the key point that I asked about the wording in February 2023 when they asked for any communications but I would just say to the Deputy First Minister if she's so confident of her ground here if she's so confident why can't she support our motion our motion is not condemning that there's been a breach of the ministerial code it's a straightforward motion saying that this matter that is clearly in dispute should be referred to an independent adviser under the ministerial code if the Scottish Government have believed their right then the independent adviser will vindicate their position why cannot they put it to an independent adviser to be assessed whether the member rightly referred himself twice to an independent adviser Nicola Sturgeon did it herself in the context of the salmon inquiry as Douglas Ross reminded us so what do they have to hide their refusal to do that suggests that they are on uncertain ground I'm very grateful to Murdo Fraser to give way and on that point would that not fulfil the Nolan principle of submitting themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure the transparency the committee of the Parliament standards committee makes a very fair point about the need for transparency and I fear what we've heard from the Government just typifies the sense of arrogance and entitlement from Scottish ministers that they do not feel they have to submit themselves to scrutiny from external bodies and there's a clear parallel with what we've seen over the last few days from the health secretary who is still missing in action from this Parliament the question of his roaming charges where if he's done nothing wrong why is he not being transparent and open with the information and he can prove he has done nothing wrong and the fact that he's refusing to do that leads to suspicion that there's something amiss in his behaviour I'm conscious I'm already over my time let me just say in closing for years this Scottish Government has presented a holier than thou attitude some sort of claim for the moral superiority over people at Westminster however threadbare that claim was previously before today it's now being exposed as holy false this afternoon I don't doubt the Government's going to win the vote in a few minutes time because it will whip its backbenchers into supporting it but in so doing it will lose the last shred of credibility it's held George Adam has just told us that he will use political integrity and transparency the families of Covid victims the families of those who died in care homes and the people of Scotland expect better from this Government if it really does care about transparency if it really does care about truth and integrity it will vote with the motion in name of my friend Douglas Ross