here in Scotland as well. The public were forced to spend months effectively restricted in their homes unable to see family and friends. They were prevented from doing the activities that they loved, in the places they loved to go, with the people they loved to spend time with. Children missed out on crucial education. Examinations in schools, colleges and universities were affected. Important milestones were delayed or cancelled altogether, and perhaps most devastatingly of all, so many people were denied the chance to see a final goodbye to loved ones in their last moments. These were the hard sacrifices that people here in Scotland made to protect one another. Sacrifices that were made because their governments asked them to, because they believed that these actions were being taken forward for the right reasons, that their protection and the protection of their fellow citizens was the number one priority, the only priority for government in those difficult times. Even if different decisions were being made across the UK, they were being made based on sound public health advice. Now, nearly four years on, from the start of the first lockdown, the work of the UK Covid inquiry has let us see just how blatantly this SNP Government abused that trust. This morning, Nicola Sturgeon was asked why she got rid of all of her WhatsApp messages despite knowing he did not destroy order was in place. She was asked why she assured a journalist that all of her messages would be handed over to the inquiry, despite knowing when she gave that answer she had already deleted them. Nicola Sturgeon has apologised for giving unclear answers, but she should be apologising to the people of Scotland for much, much more. Nicola Sturgeon should be apologising for destroying vital evidence. Nicola Sturgeon should be apologising for misleading the press and the public about deleting those messages. Nicola Sturgeon should be apologising for breaking a clear promise to be open. Nicola Sturgeon should be apologising for her secrecy, her dishonesty and her arrogant disregard for transparency. Rules of this Parliament prevent me from describing Nicola Sturgeon using the only language that truly reflects what she did.  The evidence proves that the former First Minister deliberately made statements that she knew to be untrue and deleted key evidence that she knew would be requested. We have learned more in this Covid inquiry than just the culture of secrecy within the SNP Government. Rather than treating the pandemic with the seriousness and sobriety it deserved. We had the health secretary, now the First Minister and the national clinical director joking about winging it during a pandemic that had killed 10,000 people in Scotland by that point, and they were joking about winging it. Maybe that is why Hamza Yousaf offered to take £100 million out of the NHS budget when it was on its knees during the pandemic. I will give way to Mr Mason. John Mason. When he talks about people being serious, does he think Boris Johnson was serious enough about it? We did have a question in the office how long it would take the SNP to mention Boris Johnson. I had gone for earlier than four minutes in fairness, but let's focus on what we are discussing here with the UK Covid inquiry meeting in Scotland and the actions of the SNP Scottish Government during this pandemic. We also know that, as well as winging it, the First Minister, when he was health secretary, admitted that he would get found out sooner rather than later. On that, I think we can agree that Hamza Yousaf was correct. He should not just be apologising for his Government's failure to hand over WhatsApp messages, but he should also be apologising for the crass content of those messages and how that has impacted the families of the Covid bereaved. We have also found out in recent days—again, earlier today, when the former First Minister was questioned—about minutes that were not taken of key meetings and that those meetings would even keep secret from Cabinet secretaries. Members of the Scottish Government Cabinet, who were tasked by all of us to make responsible decisions during the pandemic, were excluded from those meetings. Worse than that, we had the former First Minister and her chief of staff plotting to start a good old-fashioned rami with the UK Government for purely political reasons. Let me just repeat that. Nicola Sturgeon and her closest spin doctor thought that they should be acting in purely political ways during a global pandemic. Does any SNP member want to intervene to defend that? None of them—Mr Mason—is going to defend the SNP Government for using the pandemic for purely political purposes. I am asking again if the UK Government and Michael Gove did not do exactly the same. Douglas Scott? No, they did not, but what we have seen in this inquiry is the top spin doctor to the former First Minister looking to start a fight with the SNP, with the UK Government. Remember, she wanted to ask for things that she knew would be refused.  That is what Nicola Sturgeon and her chief of staff were discussing. We now know that, in June 2020, just a few months into the pandemic, the SNP Government was discussing how the public health crisis could be used to boost independence. Children could not go to school, restaurants remain shut, friends and family were just beginning to be able to meet up again. I will give way to any SNP member. Do they want to defend months into the pandemic? They are SNP Government ministers looking to use the pandemic to boost independence. No one is standing up, but some of them are laughing. John Mason is still laughing. He thinks that this is funny. I will give way to Ruth Maguire in a moment. I will give way to Ms Maguire. John Mason might want to take the smirk off of his face in this important debate. I will not be the only person in this chamber who lost someone during the pandemic and will be finding this display quite despicable. We are serious politicians in a serious place. It would be good if we could talk about the actual issues rather than grandstanding. It is a disgrace to the people who lost their lives. That is the actual debate. I respect Ruth Maguire. She stood up there and she couldn't defend her own Government wanting to use a pandemic to boost independence. I am not the one grandstanding. That is what Nicholas Sturgeon and her cabinet were agreeing months into the pandemic. Just as they always have done and will continue to do, the SNP were fixated by their political obsession when there were far, far bigger issues affecting Scotland and they are a national disgrace. All of that is from the messages that we know about, because the then First Minister, Nicholas Sturgeon, her Deputy John Swinney and countless political advisers and civil servants all manually deleted their WhatsApp messages. He is not here just now, I know that he is in Parliament, but no-one will ever refer to Mr Swinney as honest John ever again. Sleekid Sturgeon will be remembered for deleting vital evidence on an industrial sale, denying grieving families the truth they deserve. The current First Minister is winging it so badly that he told the inquiry that he had deleted all his messages but told the public that he'd retained them. All of this, with all of those characters, despite both the UK and Scottish inquiries making it clear that destroying evidence, including WhatsApp messages, is an offence. We've seen the national clinical director, Jason Leitch, describe deleting WhatsApp messages as a pre-bed ritual. Ken Thomson, the Scottish Government director general at the time, bragged about plausible liability being his middle name. The chief medical officer, Gregor Smith, advised his colleagues to delete messages at the end of every day. John Swinney revealed in his evidence this week that this is a practice that he has been following for 17 years. For 17 years, they have been deleting this evidence. If there was nothing to hide, why did they feel the need to have these daily digital bonfires of evidence, evidence that they knew had been specifically requested by two public inquiries? It can only be, as we've seen from the messages to the UK Covid inquiry, that they've been able to get their hands on because of the appalling culture of secrecy that is permeated through every level of this rotten SNP Government. Nicola Sturgeon told us in 2021, in that interview, an answer session that I referred to earlier, that, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing would be off-limits in providing evidence to a public inquiry, including WhatsApps. Yet Jamie Dawson KC said, at the time that request was made, Nicola Sturgeon, the former First Minister of Scotland, had retained no messages whatsoever in connection with her management of the pandemic. Nicola Sturgeon made the promise of transparency in full knowledge that she had already deleted what evidence she could, that far from nothing being off-limits, there was nothing to give.  And if the SNP benches don't like that, those are not my words. That is the verdict of one of their former colleagues, the SNP's Joan McAlpine, a verdict that I am sure more and more of the public are beginning to agree with. The Scottish Conservative motion today is calling for the Covid-19 Committee to be reconstituted to look into the very serious matters that we have raised and for Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and Humza Yousaf to be referred to the independent adviser on the ministerial code to look at what has happened. We know that there have been mistakes made by Governments across the world during this pandemic, but we now know that the perception that the Scottish Government was better was whiter than white, was only achieved because they were frantically deleting every shred of evidence that would have shown otherwise. What little we have seen shows a SNP Government that is seet in secrecy, that was joking about the virus spreading across the country, that was winging it instead of making decisions based on hard public health evidence, that was pursuing purely political objectives while people died. For all the sacrifices that the Scottish people made during the pandemic, the very least they deserve from this SNP Government, even at this late stage, is openness and transparency. The fact that it looks like they will never get this is truly unforgivable. I urge members across the chamber today to support the Scottish Conservative motion to get the answers that the public desperately need. I now call on Shona Robison to speak to your move amendment 12010.5. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Covid-19 pandemic touched every life in Scotland, and throughout the pandemic, the Scottish Government's absolute priority was always to keep the people of this country safe. The threat posed by a novel virus whose long-term effects we are still working to fully understand wrought a fear around the world. Whether through constituents' experience or indeed our own personal experiences—many of whom I know have been personally affected in this chamber—we know of the pain of the loss of loved ones during the Covid-19 pandemic, and I would like to put on record my condolences to all those affected. Loss, of course, was made harder in the early days of the pandemic by the necessities of distancing to help to reduce the spread of the virus. It is that sacrifice that compounded the pain of grief, and I will never be fully able to express my gratitude to the people. Those simple acts of following the rules, despite the absolutely human desire for connection and solace, were for me the unspoken acts of heroism of the pandemic, as were, of course, the efforts of those who worked on the front line day in and day out to look after us and to keep us safe. Those in government here, in London, Cardiff and Stormont and across the world, were faced with a fast-moving threat that they had to respond to quickly. To do so, those tasks with taking decisions were, of course, supported by civil servants, scientific advisers and clinical advisers. I want to place on record my thanks to those staff across the whole of the UK who did their very best in the most challenging of times. The Scottish Government was clear throughout the pandemic that our response would not be perfect, mistakes would be made and that we hoped that lessons would be learned for the future. That necessity that lessons are learned in case we face a new disease in the future is why we commissioned a judge-led inquiry here in Scotland. Indeed, Scotland is, of course, the only part of the UK with a dedicated national inquiry. That necessity is also why we are participating fully with the UK Covid inquiry. We must learn from our shared experiences and improve together. That is exactly what we hope that the two independent judge-led inquiries will provide. Does the Deputy First Minister accept that, while everyone wants the inquiries to come up with conclusions that can be used in the future, their work is being hampered because Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and senior civil servants deleted key messages that are now not available to the inquiry? I do not believe that the work of the inquiries is being hampered. I believe that they are being robust and will get to the truth of the matter and will put on record their analysis of what they believe has taken place. They will hold politicians to account throughout the islands for the decisions that they made and we await their report. Sadly, today's debate is, of course, partisan in nature, taking place before the UK Covid inquiry has even finished taking evidence in Scotland and on the very day that the former First Minister is giving her evidence. I do not believe that the public will think that politicians are best placed to be judged and jury on the adequacy or otherwise of the response to the pandemic led by other politicians and that attempts to create some kind of hierarchy of blame where others are always put at the top tells us why the establishment of an independent judge-led inquiry was so important. An inquiry that will scrutinise the decisions made by all Governments across the UK without fear or favour and without political interference. She said that there should be no political interference during the Covid inquiry. Why then, as soon as Boris Johnson and Richard Sunack stood up, did the Scottish Government jump up and down and make as much noise as possible? Do you not reap what you saw in this debate? There is no comparison. Let me turn to the matter of informal messages such as WhatsApps that I was being focused on by Douglas Ross. The policy of the Scottish Government on retention of information to the official record has been set out on a number of occasions, not least by me. Informal messaging is something that the Scottish Government has reflected on through this process. That is why, of course, the First Minister has not only apologised for any hurt caused by the Scottish Government prior handling of the request from the inquiry, but has also announced an externally led review of the use of mobile messaging apps and non-corporate technology. We would be happy to work with any other Governments in the islands on. As it appears, we are all facing similar issues on this matter, not just now. A fact demonstrated by the following quote given to the UK inquiry and a witness statement from Richard Sunack, the Prime Minister, who of course provided no messages to the inquiry, but who said, and I quote, "...my expectation would be that if the officials on those groups had considered that any information being communicated by WhatsApp message needed to be preserved to form part of the official record, then those officials would have taken steps to ensure that that happened." Of course, the material that the Government has provided to the UK inquiry to date includes emails, messages, submissions and advice to ministers and papers from key decision making meetings, including the Scottish Cabinet. In total, more than 19,000 documents and almost 28,000 messages have been provided briefly. If the Scottish Government policy of deleting messages is the correct one and so important, why did Kate Forbes, as finance secretary, not know about it? And why did Hamza Yousaf, the current First Minister, not follow it? Well, what I have been really clear is setting out the policy that was about making sure that any salient points were transcribed to the official record and then other information could be deleted thereafter. That has been the policy and that is the policy that I set out in detail in the statement to this Parliament. The UK inquiry has, in the last few weeks, touched on a range of issues that will inform how we prepare for the future. The UK inquiry is currently on module 2A, but in time we will move on to other specific aspects of the response to the pandemic, including module 5 on procurement. In fact, the preliminary hearing for module 5 will take place in London next week. Module 5 will be important because it will consider issues such as the prevalence of fraud in PPE contracts, including the UK Government's so-called high priority lane, among other matters. Separately, there are also clearly an ongoing investigations from a national crime agency into suspected criminal offences in relation to UK Government PPE contracts. I believe that all that adds weight to the calls for the creation of a UK Covid corruption commissioner, and this Government will support efforts of any future UK Government to establish such a role to seek to recoup public funds lost to waste and fraud. In conclusion, our thoughts and sympathies go to everyone who was impacted by the pandemic. I believe that the work of the inquiries is vital to give an independent view and consideration of the handling of the pandemic across to the UK free from political interference. I think that it is right and proper that politicians of all parties should allow the inquiries to get on with their work and we will await their conclusions and then we will respond as appropriate. I look forward to continuing to provide the inquiries with the material they need to do their job, and I move their amendment in my name. Just to advise the chamber, there really is no time in hand, so members will have to stick to their speaking time allocations and accommodate interventions. Within that, I call Jackie Baillie to speak to a move amendment 12010.3 up to seven minutes, Ms Baillie. We debate the culture of secrecy and cover-up that has been laid bare in the UK Covid-19 inquiry. Let us remember at the heart of this scandal the people who lost their lives and families who lost their loved ones. It is for them that we search for answers and call out that culture of cover-up at the very heart of this Government. In recent weeks, we have seen revealed that Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney, Jason Leitch, other officials to numerous to-name have deleted all of their pandemic WhatsApp messages. Nicola Sturgeon described Boris Johnson as a clown. Many might agree with that, but no-one thinks that of Nicola Sturgeon.  Some have described it as cynical and calculating. Whether you agree with that or not, it is deliberate. This week, Jeane Freeman admitted that the SNP Government was not prepared for the pandemic, Kate Forbes has challenged the deletion of evidence by her own colleagues, and Nicola Sturgeon today confirms that she misled the nation and puts the boot into poor Humza Yousaf. The inquiry was able to scrutinise the WhatsApp messages of UK Government ministers and officials. It will have no such ability to scrutinise the totality of the decision-making process of Nicola Sturgeon and her advisers, thanks to the systematic destruction of evidence on a truly industrial scale. That is utterly shameful and a complete betrayal of trust. The SNP's arrogance and sense of impunity has robbed the public of any chance of properly understanding what happened during the pandemic. The discharge of patients to care homes untested, the closure of businesses, the shutting down of our schools. Of course, more than 17,000 Scots died from Covid-19. The loss of each of those lives is a tragedy, yet one surviving WhatsApp exchange reveals that the SNP chief of staff was much more concerned with stoking a good old-fashioned rami with the UK Government so she could stop thinking about something other than sick people. The outrage of a comment like that surpasses party politics. This attitude at the very centre is utterly indefensible. 17,000 lives lost, but the SNP's priority was constitutional bickering. When asked about this, the former First Minister simply failed to tell the truth. We have no answers as to why key and often deadly decisions were made, but what we do have is proof positive of the SNP's skewed priorities. It is not the first time that the SNP has attempted to conceal the truth from voters. Over the past 17 years, it has instilled the culture of secrecy and cover-up, which now permeates Scottish politics. I have been in the Parliament for some time since the beginning. I have had a ringside seat to the erosion of accountability and the shroud of secrecy at its worst when Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney were in charge. The SNP has long berated the Tories at Westminster for its sense of closed government, but it seems that those protests were a case of, do as I say, not as I do. Transparency and openness should be practised by everyone else, but not the SNP when it comes down to it, because it is one rule for them and another for the rest of us. The use of private, un-FOI-able SNP emails for official conversations, the mass destruction of discussion chains and the on-going misleading of Parliament cannot continue. This goes beyond political scandal. It is a potential breach of the law. Officials appear happy to give way. Brutal Hamilton. Does she agree with the Conservatives on the benches that we should reconvene the Covid-19 Committee so that we can get some transparency around the decision-making, around the pandemic? Whilst I have no objection to that, I am unclear how a committee would do any better than Lady Hallit is doing in fairness. Having been on the salmon committee, I understand the frustration, frankly, of trying to get information from the Government, and I reckon that Lady Hallit's chances are better. Ms Bailey, can you resume the seat today? There is far too much background noise. Let's have the respect and listen to the person who has the floor. Jackie Baillie. Thank you. I was coming on to why I think that this is a potential breach of the law, because officials appear to have deliberately attempted to communicate in ways that would avoid Government decision-making being covered by FOI requests. I am sure that the attention will now turn to whether there was a breach of the Inquiries Act and the Freedom of Information Act and whether there is indeed a need for a formal police investigation. I would also like the permanent secretary to review the civil service code, as I cannot believe that it is acceptable for the custodian of the document retention policy to be telling people how to avoid compliance with it. I cannot believe that it is acceptable that the national clinical director, who helped to shape the regulations, was telling a minister how to get around them. Ministers have misled this Parliament. The SNP has misled Scotland. That culture of secrecy and cover-up must end, because the people of Scotland deserve so much better than that. I believe that change is possible. Scottish Labour would transform Government and clean out the Scottish Parliament. We would conduct a full review of parliamentary procedures to ensure that Parliament is robust and reflective of people's daily experiences. We would place a limit on the number of ministerial and government posts and strengthen the effectiveness of the committee system. We would address problems with accountability and transparency, providing protection for whistleblowers, introducing a right of recall for MSPs and establishing consequences for breaking the ministerial code, which this Government seems to do with impunity. The people of Scotland can no longer trust the SNP. They have been taken for granted by a party that is out of touch and out of ideas. That is not just about the inquiry. That is about how this Government operates, a culture of secrecy that goes from the First Minister right down. Enough is enough, Presiding Officer. It is time for change, and I move the amendment in my name. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak with the Liberal Democrats in today's debate. Outside the Covid-19 inquiry in Edinburgh last week, a member of the Covid bereaved families held back tears, as she said of the former First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. I am absolutely ashamed and devastated to hear what she is doing now. I cannot believe it. She was there representing just one of millions of Scots families who hung on the former First Ministers every word during those daily lunchtime briefings. Those families shaped their worlds around the policies spelled out from that bute house podium and who saw their lives and their lives of their loved ones curtailed—yes, in some cases even foreshortened—by those same policies. But now, at the time of asking, when it matters most, the former First Minister's words—words which define the culture and the calculation that underpinned those life and death decisions—have been rendered almost wholly irretrievable. It is now clear that a full narrative account of Scotland's pandemic story will be forever denied to the families at the heart of this, and what is worse, it is denied to them by an act of willful concealment by Nicola Sturgeon and by those around her. The most difficult moment for Nicola Sturgeon in her testimony before the inquiry this morning came when, in cross-examination, Jamie Dawson Casey asked her about assurances that she had made to Kieran Jenkins of Channel 4 News that she would retain not just the salient points of her WhatsApps and other private messages but submit them wholesale and in their entirety to the inquiry that she knew was sure to follow. She was forced to make clear to the inquiry today that she never had any intention of fulfilling that assurance because, at the time of making it, she was personally deleting every one of those messages. She apologised to the inquiry and then repeated almost word for word the same justification for the complete excision of those messages that was offered to the inquiry just yesterday by her deputy, John Swinney, that such messages were of little consequence. In any case, since 2007, SNP ministers have been strongly advised by the civil service to delete all messages or private messages once key points have been transferred to the official Government record. That should a phone or other device be lost or stolen sensitive correspondence would not be compromised. It does bear stating, Presiding Officer, that this was a policy that was not actually codified until November 2021, several months after the Scottish Government had itself issued a do not destroy notice for such a material. Perhaps why neither Kate Forbes or Jane Freeman ministers of some time served knew nothing of such a policy. However, here is where I get stuck. Members will recall that I, along with Jackie Baillie, served on the committee of inquiry into the Scottish Government's handling of harassment complaints, the salmon inquiry. If, as we have heard, Nicola Sturgeon only ever used her own personal phone, if we were to believe that, since 2007, she routinely followed advice from civil servants by deleting all of her private messages to avoid them being compromised in any way, how is it then that Nicola Sturgeon was able to furnish our inquiry with literally pages and pages of WhatsApp messages retrieved from her phone between herself and Alex Salmond sent in 2017? Those messages were of a highly personal and sensitive nature. If her pandemic WhatsApps were of such little consequence, why delete one set and not the other? All the grieving families at the heart of this have to go on now are the remnants of a few pieced-together conversations. It is not what they were promised. Those messages matter, because what little we have seen, we catch a glimpse of that culture behind the decisions that we all had to live and, in some cases, die with and under. In May 20, 2021, Hamza Yousaf wrote, when we heard this today, as we have done several times in this inquiry, an exchange between himself and Jason Leitch. He started with Hamza Yousaf saying, there was some First Minister, keep it small, shenanigans, as always. Jason Leitch replied, she actually wants none of us. The former First Minister definitely tried to spin this, as just not wanting to cast a cast of thousands at every meeting, but I think it speaks to something more, in many ways, a Government within a Government. A pandemic response was governed in large part by a shadowy central committee that we now know as Gold Command. I say shadowy because it is a central committee with no meeting diet and no minutes—a committee about which the finance secretary, Kate Forbes, knew absolutely nothing for much of her first months in office. However, that was the committee that formed in large part the wheelhouse of our pandemic response. It provided options and decisions for ratification by cabinet. Over the summer recess month, it was actually the only group to which the First Minister would refer to sense check decisions. Ministers must, at times, have felt like window dressing. Decisions, it seems, were taken by a very limited number of individuals, some of them not even elected. This was a time when this Parliament had transferred an unprecedented level of power to Scottish ministers. I do not remember any clause of the Coronavirus Act seeding such control to such a committee. However, sometimes even that was circumvented. On 18 March, as many others did, I packed my 11-year-old boy off of what would be his last day in primary 7. It turns out, from testimony that we received yesterday, only John Swinney, only Nicola Sturgeon took that decision, and they did so without reference to Cabinet discussion. There was no analysis of the impact on the poverty-related chain of children's mental health. If I have time, I am afraid that I am closing. Unfortunately, I would have a no analysis of children's mental health. All of us had to live with those decisions. The families of the bereaved had to live with those decisions, and they are now looking for answers that they will be forever denied. Mr Cole-Hamilton, we now move to the open debate. I call for Craig Hoy to be followed by Kevin Stewart. Five minutes, Mr Hoy. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This SNP Government tells lies. It does so willfully, and it does so willingly, and it does so to cover up the truth. Could I advise you, please, to respect the rules in relation to what is acceptable language in this chamber, Mr Hoy? Okay, this SNP Government has told on truths. It does so willfully, and it does so willingly, and it does so to cover up the truth. To save its own skin, it spends the public's money going to court to prevent the public from knowing the truth. It is secretive, and it is manipulative. It puts Scottish nationalism ahead of the Scottish people. It stops the public from knowing how decisions were taken. It puts a smokescreen around who took those decisions and why they did so, and worse still, in a pandemic. At a time of life and death, deceit and delete became the default options. We know now that the secrets that expose the rotten underbelly of the Scottish National Party are plain to see, because in this inquiry they have made a mistake. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Now we know something that we have long suspected. This SNP Government tried to play the public for fools using the pandemic for political purposes. It was there for all to see in a WhatsApp message from Liz Lloyd, a constitutional rami to further Nicola Sturgeon's independence obsession. But yet still, with a public inquiry, we only know the half of it, because the words of Donald Rumsfeld are actually quite helpful here. There are no knowns. There are things that we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know, but there are also unknown unknowns, the ones that we do not know that we do not know, and that is the core of the problem. We simply do not know what we do not know, because Nicola Sturgeon conducted a digital bonfire to get rid of the evidence, evidence that would be relevant to a public inquiry that she knew was coming. But it was not just Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney, Jason Leitch and others deleted their Covid WhatsApp messages. They called it plausible deniability. Decisions deleted, vital information lost. Answers for grieving families that will now remain as unknown unknowns forever. We found out yesterday that a sherry cabal was taking key Covid decisions. Discussing the clandestine formerly unminuted gold command meetings, Kate Forbes told the inquiry, I wasn't invited. I'm not even sure I was aware that they existed. Presiding Officer, the SNP don't just mislead the public. They mislead their own people too. Take these words from Nicola Sturgeon contained in a leaked video. There are no reasons for people to be concerned about the party's finances and all of us need to be careful about not suggesting that there is. No reasons to be concerned, but just weeks later, her husband Peter Murrell made a secret loan to prop up the SNP's party finances. A luxury camper van appeared on the party's books. A police investigation led to three arrests, including that of Nicola Sturgeon herself. Just this weekend, media reports alleged that signatures on the SNP's accounts may have been falsified, and the investigation still continues. Within your five minutes, I would expect you to stick to the detail of the motion that Douglas Ross has put to this point. It is about transparency. The investigation still continues. The nation's money is being spent to investigate its very own Government. This is just the tip of the transparency iceberg. Take the two ferries, rusting on the banks of the Clyde, procurement rules ignored, key messages not minited, more than a whiff of secrecy in the air, or take the on-going secrecy surrounding the Alex Salmond trial. Only last month, the SNP Government was told by the court of session that it had no legal basis upon which to withhold evidence gathered during the investigation into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code. What a cynical shower of charlatans, but their mask has slipped. Nicola Sturgeon stood at that podium each and every day, but, at the same time, she and her cynical cabal were secretly seeking to use the pandemic to promote independence. Humza Yousaf has questions to answer, too. He admitted himself something that we have all known, that he is out of his depth and will be found out sooner than later. Thanks to the public inquiry, we have finally found them out, but not before real damage has been done. An SNP Government that was meant to be off the people, for the people, was actually sneering at the people, such as the intoxicated arrogance of 17 years of SNP misrule. They have run out of excuses, they have run out of credibility and they should be run out of government. Kevin Stewart followed by Alec Rowley up to six minutes, Mr Stewart. During the course of the debate, I received a message from a friend of mine who lost a family member to Covid, and I am going to quote what they have just said. I simply wish that, as a relative, that all sides would stop trying to play politics and leave the inquiry to get on with its job, and we are hearing laughter from the Tory benches. My heart goes out to all those who lost loved ones to Covid-19, individuals, families and communities who suffered during the pandemic, and to those who are still feeling the impact of what was, in my opinion, the most traumatic event of our lifetimes. My thanks goes to all the public servants, the experts, the community groups and the many others who help the Scottish Government and their fellow Scots navigate the difficult path that Covid-19 laid in front of us. Many people went beyond the call of duty to do their best, and my hope was that their work, their efforts and their help would have featured more in the analysis of what went on during the course of the pandemic. Personally, I am grateful to the likes of Lorraine McGrath, the chief executive of the Simon community and streetworks, for the work that she, her team and other third sector partners and civil servants carried out to ensure that all rough sleepers were brought off the streets and safely accommodated. I am obliged to folk like Alan Wilson of Select and other construction industry leaders for their co-operation, their input and their patience during tough times. I am humbled by the commitment of the care home relative Scotland members, who scrutinised, cajoled and advocated for families who had loved ones in our care homes, even when they were often feeling anguish, loss and despair themselves. Those heroes need the answers from the inquiries. They need to know about the decision making that took place and where we got it right, where we got it wrong and what changes need to be put in place to do better or best in the future. The Government has reiterated again and again that it is committed to openness, transparency and decision making. That is why the Scottish Government established the first public inquiry in the UK to examine the response to Covid-19. That was announced in December 2021, ahead of the UK Government commencing the UK-wide public inquiry. The inquiries were—I will take a very brief intervention. I thank Kevin Stewart for the early intervention. In the interests of transparency, he was a minister during the Covid pandemic. Did he delete his emails and his WhatsApp messages? Was he asked to supply them to the inquiry and would he consider the deletion of emails wrong? I have deleted no emails, Presiding Officer. As I said, the inquiries were established to help identify what could have been done better and to improve Government decision making in a pandemic to save lives and prevent suffering in the future. The Scottish Government has committed to considering closely the recommendations that both the Scottish and the UK public inquiries make. In my opinion, it is entirely inappropriate to comment on the detail of evidence being considered by the Covid inquiries while hearings are on-going. It has been the norm in this place in the past that detailed matters pertaining to an inquiry are not debated while the inquiry is sitting. What is happening here does a disservice to those who have lost loved ones and who are seeking answers. The most important way to recognise the loss and the suffering of the people of Scotland and the wider UK population during the pandemic is to let the inquiries do their job, learn from the evidence and implement the recommendations. Presiding Officer, I go back to the start of my speech, because, obviously, as we are debating this today, it is having an impact on people at home. It is time to stop the politicking here. It is time to let the inquiries do their job. It is time to ensure that people get the answers that they deserve. It is assured that I now call Alec Rowley to be followed by Bob Doris up to six minutes. While we have this debate today, we must never forget the levels of suffering that many families went through as a result of the pandemic. To the Scottish Covid brief families' bravery in sharing their experiences of the pandemic throughout the inquiry are a stark reminder of the many ways in which people in Scotland suffered immense pain, loss and hurt at an unprecedented time of fear and confusion around the globe. I think that most people in Scotland want to understand how decisions were made and on what basis those decisions were made, both at a UK and Scottish level. It is disappointing, therefore, that the issue of deleted information and missing messages has become so prominent. That has added to the grief that many families are suffering. So I was pleased that the First Minister recognised at least one of those failures as he unreservedly apologized to the inquiry and to those more than the loss of a loved one for what he described as, frankly, poor handling of inquiry requests by the Scottish Government. I believe that it is fair to conclude from the revelations of the inquiry so far that there are issues within the Scottish Government when it comes to transparency and scrutiny. Bear in mind that the UK inquiry is expected to be taking evidence into the summer of 2026. I think that a legitimate question for this Parliament is, should any action be taken to examine any of the issues around the decisions that were taken and recorded across Government? I think that it is fair to ask, do we need to review data retention policies, our approach to freedom of information, and insist, as the people of this country insist, on full transparency from our political representatives and Governments? If we can turn to the motions briefly, in terms of the motion from the Tories, the idea of the Covid recovery committee being reconstituted, I agree with Jackie Baillie, you are not going to try to run some kind of inquiry. However, I would say that there is merit here, because hopefully I have the time to go on and explain my thinking around this. There are issues coming up, and it is not about looking back and making judgments, it is actually looking forward and saying that if there is bad practice here, what a way is a Parliament going to do to actually look at that? I do believe that there is merit in what is being suggested. I hope that, away from this place, parties can look together and discuss together and look at how we can address some of those issues. In terms of the amendment that will be passed today, because the Government parties have the numbers, it notes that 20,000 messages and 19,000 documents have been handed to the Covid inquiry. What I think, and I say this sincerely, I think failing to actually also note that there are texts or whatever that are missing, failing to do that will just cause more grief for the people like that. I do not know if Sona Robinson has watched some of the television interviews, we believe families over the last few weeks. A lot of them are absolutely heart-broken and feel let down. Until the inquiry reports, we will not know the detail and how the inquiry is going to look at those, missing what is absent and whatever, but we at least should have an anything passed in here acknowledged that it was an issue. If the First Minister went and apologised, I believe with sincerity that would have made that a better motion. John Mason, does he really think that there is vital information in what that message is, or is it just chit chat and gossip? That is the problem. I do not know, and neither do others. That is why we need to at least acknowledge that there has been an issue there. The other part of the amendment that will get passed today, Rachel Reeves, Labour conference, announced that the next Labour Government would create a powerful Covid corruption commission. She talked about aiming initially to get at least £2.6 billion of lost public funds. It is estimated that £7.2 billion was lost and fraud from Covid support schemes, including from business loans, grants, furlough and eat out, so Labour is absolutely committed to that at a UK level, and should I say quite rightly so? There are other issues that I think I will touch on briefly. Were we prepared for Covid? It is clear that we were not prepared. It is clear that the whole of the UK was not prepared. On the Covid recovery committee, the experts continually said that, if you had a well-funded health service, well-resourced and well-functioning, the countries who had that were the best prepared for any kind of pandemic. I know that people have read the other day that this is a 100-year event. A lot of those experts also warned that, with the changes in climate, the changes around the world, there is more and more risk. It might be the proposal that is coming forward to look at some kind of committee that would look at, are we prepared now so that we can learn the lessons, not to just wait until the report comes, but I am out of time, so I will thank that friend and offer. Thank you very much, Mr Rowley. I now call Bob Doris to be followed by Pam Gothell up to six minutes, Mr Doris. Can we have Mr Doris's camera and audio, please? Can you hear me now, Presiding Officer? I can hear you up to six minutes, Mr Doris. Thank you. In 2020 and through to 2021, Scotland was, along with nations across the world, seeking to grapple with an unprecedented global pandemic, certainly unprecedented in modern times. Now, my parents passed away a few years earlier, in 2015 and 2016. I can't comprehend how I would have felt had I had to visit my mum and look at her through a window, or not being able to see my dad again due to Covid-19 infection control, or indeed had either lost either of them in a care home as a consequence of Covid-19. I did lose one of my best friends during Covid-19, although not through Covid, and attended a graveyard service. At that time, 20 were allowed to attend. I wasn't sure if I made 21, so I stood back, apart from the graveside service. But I did approach David's mum and dad to offer my condolences once the service had ended. I didn't hug them, but I wanted to. Presiding Officer, families that were separated from loved ones during due to Covid-19, many never to see loved ones again, often unable to take a few rows and show their last respects, want to ensure scrutiny of the governance of all governance that made these decisions and for lessons to be learned. That is surely what both the Scottish and UK public inquiries are seeking to do. My life work is a nurse in the NHS critical care ward, right through Covid-19. I'm still not sure of the impact on my wife beyond the awful masks the fitted masks made when her face features her at home from work every night, but more generally Covid-19 will have taken its toll. I'm not sure I'll ever know how much. I want to make sure both public inquiries fully interrogate when the preparedness of Scotland's and other UK NHS systems on our care homes and in other key areas, as well as in her staff or front-line staff, were supported. I was lucky during Covid-19. My salary was secure. I didn't lose a loved one directly to Covid during that time. I had living space and a garden for my kids to run about in. Those staying in overcrowded properties without access to living space and gardens or asylum seekers pushed by the Home Office into hotels and out of terrancies, those that lost businesses or suffered financial hardship. They will all wish to see inquiries analysed decisions taken by all Governments. My job, as an MSP at that time, and I know colleagues right across all parties will recognise this, was often doing my best to seek and secure robust and reliable information and guidance to constituents, to community groups and to local businesses. My office team were outstanding in the efforts, and I put that on the record here this afternoon. However, it was challenging. People needed clarity and certainty, and they wanted it in real time.  That clarity, that advice, that certainty had to be brought by ministers, cabinet secretaries, civil servants, special advisers, clinical advisers and a whirl of other people, almost certainly the heart of decision making, often at breakneck speed. Did they get everything right? Of course not. Did they, by and large, work diligently, compassionately, professionally and strenuously over many months acting in what they believe were our best interests? I believe so, but some might say that I would say that. I am a backbench MSP of the Scottish Government. I suspect that there are Conservatives MPs in England saying that the inquiry there should be allowed to do its work. Indeed, Labour members of the Senedd and Wales saying something similar in terms of the actions and behaviours of the Wales Government, I get it. That kind of gets to the nub of the Conservative motion in the Parliament this afternoon. Many will see the Conservative motion this afternoon for what it is, drifting with opportunism and hypocrisy. The public inquiries will scrutinise without fear or favour and without politicisation. They will draw conclusions based on all the evidence that they hear, not on the politicised, partial and opportunistic comments of Douglas Ross or even Jackie Baillie. The inquiries will not cherry pick. They will not take parts of evidence out of context. They will not rush to the judge and reach findings based on trying to grab media headlines for political expediency. In other words, they will not act with the Conservative party. Douglas Ross mentioned what is the message regarding the SNP causing a political rame during Covid-19. From my interpretation of that exchange, it revolved around the need for Scotland to secure furlough payments that otherwise would have been denied to our businesses and our workforce. It is financial support that the UK Government made an eye at the Scottish Government dinner of the power to deliver. That is my opinion. That is opinion. The Conservatives and Labour are likely to disagree with that. The difference is that I wish to let Covid-19 inquiries go almost look at the evidence and not rush to judge for raw political advantage. In closing, I have not focused on the many shortcomings and failings of Boris Johnson at the Tories during Covid-19. The judge-led inquiries will no doubt have something to say about that. Instead, I have focused on the work of the inquiries and hope that we can get beyond the raw politics and let the inquiries do their work. I call Pam Gosel to be followed by John Mason up to five minutes, Ms Gosel. Summarising 17 years of deceit and cover-up in no more than five minutes is near impossible. But thanks to the motion brought forward by the Scottish Conservatives, we can begin dissecting the shocking revelations from the UK Covid inquiry in Scotland so far. The pandemic was a real test of leadership. Political leaders were faced with tough choices which I am sure we can all sympathise with. Decisions were made that affected lives, livelihoods, education and resilience. We can only but trust that when that storm passes, political leaders can give an account of why decisions were made. However, an SNP Government addicted to secrecy has made that near impossible task. And now, breed families have questions that may never get the answers to. Just today, we found out that Nicola Sturgeon was economical with the truth when she told the media in 2021 that no evidence would be off limits. We now know that she had already destroyed it, although, amazingly, she still had the WhatsApp exchanges with her one-time best buddy Alex Salmond. John Sweeney deleted messages between himself and Nicola Sturgeon. Former chief of staff Liz Lloyd did the same, a clear, concerted effort to hide crucial messages by key decision makers. We now know that vital gold command meetings were kept secret for some of the most senior ministers at that time, including Kate Forbes. Much to no one's surprise, they claim that they have no minutes for these meetings. It is inconceivable that civil servants did not take notes at those meetings. Where are those notes? Instead, the bereaved will have to put their faith in Nicola Sturgeon's selective memory and politically driven decision making. Sadly, the evidence that remains shows that decisions made by Nicola Sturgeon and her closest colleagues were most likely drawn up on the back of a fag packet. It is not just poor decision making, it was their motivation, because the public will ask surely the Scottish Government would not allow grievance to dry decision making while lives and livelihoods are on the line. But that is indeed what happened. Nicola Sturgeon's chief adviser wanted to create a good old-fashioned rami with the UK Government and call for things that they cannot do. At that point, I think that it is reasonable to conclude that their obsession with independence borders on dangerous and clouded their judgment. It came as no surprise to hear that Hamza Yousaf had been winging it in his time as health secretary. That was much obvious. Much more surprising was that, despite their continued assertion of moral superiority, Hamza Yousaf was all too happy to take advice from Jason Leitch, the chief clinical adviser, on how to bend the rules that they were imposing on everyone else. It was also in lighten to see what a laugh the SNP had at the expense of the public, joking about how they would delete messages and sub-hiver freedom of information requests. It does not surprise me that the SNP derives so much pleasure from evaluating public scrutiny. After all, they have treated the public and the Parliament with utter contempt. All that from the self-proclaimed most transparent party in Scotland, I write. If that were the case, they would commit to reconvening the Covid-19 recovery committee so that the Parliament can also scrutinise these revelations so that they should refer themselves for an independent investigation. The UK Covid inquiry has laid bare a culture of secrecy within this SNP Scottish Government that has rotted from the top down, a culture that runs through ministers both past and present. It has also confirmed what everyone could already see, that, even during the global pandemic, the SNP Scottish Government still tried to manufacture as much conflict and as much political grievance as possible independence at any cost, even when lives were on the line. The SNP played a blinder. They had many filled, but grieving families want justice. They want answers. They are nobody's full. I now call on John Mason to be followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity to take part in today's debate. I do get the feeling that we have been here before. Again, we seem to be concentrating on WhatsApp messages, all the chitchat and gossip that went on, and who would use such sweary words about whom. I had to say that I thought that the focus of the public inquiry would be on some of the big actual decisions that were made or not made, if it is very brief. Recognised in the evidence heard by the Covid inquiry, there are substantial messages between the former First Minister and adviser where the key decisions are discussed. That is not chitchat and gossip, but the business of government making decisions. It seems to me that very little has come out of the public inquiry so far, either from WhatsApp messages in London or WhatsApp messages in Scotland. There is very little new actual solid information. The kind of questions I thought they would be looking at were, did lockdown start at the right time? Do we need to have more test capacity, even if that diverts resources away from day-to-day medical care? Were the schools closed at the right times? Were school exams handled properly? Maybe those are the questions that the inquiry itself is looking at, but to listen to some of the media reports and to see the focus of the opposition, it is all about playing politics and scoring points. It makes you wonder about the purpose of public inquiries. Some people genuinely want to know the truth, but the reality is that most of the decisions made and the reasons for them have been in the public domain all along. Perhaps we should remember, too, that most of the decisions made had broad agreement across the parties in this chamber and in the various Covid committees of which I was a member much of the time. It seems to me that most of us did use WhatsApp for, and many still do, is a way of chatting with friends and colleagues when we are not in the same room. We use it for throwing ideas around, brainstorming and whatever. Most of us did not expect and do not expect to see our WhatsApp messages published. When the Conservative motion says, quote, deleting evidence that they knew would be required for the inquiry, I would suggest, one, that there has been very little new evidence from WhatsApp or from anywhere else, two, we all knew that Boris Johnson was an effing clown without Nicola Sturgeon telling us, two, I remain unconvinced that the inquiry does need the WhatsApp messages and that they really add very much, and three, I am not sure that many of us do think that our WhatsApp messages are likely to be required for any inquiry. I just wonder how far we want to take this. I note that the Lib Dems amendment wants more minutes of meetings, but why stop at minutes? Why not make a recording and publish every single conversation? I am sorry, I have already given way. Where would that take us potentially and eventually lead to a decision? Where do we draw the line? Labour says that there is a culture of secrecy, but how much transparency do they want? Do they want Anasawa and Humza Yousaf's every conversation to be taped and published? We also have the suggestion that the Covid Committee should be reconstituted, and I just wonder what the purpose of that would be. Most decisions made in Scotland around Covid were announced by the Scottish Government, and they were then examined in detail by the Covid Committee, who used expert advisers and a variety of witnesses, and those proposals were then approved by Parliament. Parliament even rejected some like jury list trials, and that is not to mention media scrutiny at the time. We are not having one, but two public inquiries are going over those same decisions again, and it seems to me that relatively little real new information has been coming to light in recent days. Yes, we knew that Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Nicola Sturgeon and Gene Freeman were politicians and included political angles in their decision making. That is hardly a huge revelation. Apparently, Michael Gove urged colleagues to protect and strengthen the union as a key aim during the pandemic. That is part of his job description, after all. He was doing what it says in the tin. Let us not have fake shock and surprise that politicians are politicians. Now that Tories want a resurrected Covid Committee to go over those same decisions for another time. First, the Government and the experts. Second, the Covid Committee already. Third, the media. Fourth, the UK inquiry. Fifth, the sixth inquiry, the Scottish inquiry. Why do we want to look at those same decisions again and again? What is the Tory motive? Perhaps to dig out some more juicy gossip, maybe to see if anyone else used bad language. Going back to the purpose of public inquiries, what are we hoping for? As I said, I think that some people are genuinely looking for more information and explanations. Some families sadly lost loved ones during Covid and want to know if that could have been avoided. I myself lost my mother during the pandemic, she was living in a care home and visiting was severely restricted, and then there were only 20 allowed at her funeral. It was far from ideal, but I believe that it was handled correctly. On the whole, I think that we know why such restrictions were in place, reasons were given at the time and I think that most of us accepted the logic and the thinking at that time. Now the inquiries are again looking at decisions that were made. It is all very easy to look back now and say that different decisions could and should have been made. Some would say that we all took the pandemic too seriously, we should have been more relaxed about it, there should have been fewer restrictions. But let's remember what we were seeing at the time. TV pictures of Italian hospitals overflowing and of the Chinese building new hospitals in a few weeks. The general feeling at the time was that all Governments, including the Scottish Government, had a duty to lead, a duty to act and a duty to act quickly. People wanted action from the Scottish Government and they got action from the Scottish Government. Benjamin Franklin once said that they give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. That is exactly what we did in March 2020. The events that ensued led to the loss of more than 18,000 of our fellow Scots and has left physical and mental scars on anyone who survived it. It is against that backdrop that I make my comments today. Back then, in this very chamber, I uttered the following words. I believe that ministers are working earnestly to tackle this awful virus. However, people rightly expect transparency and the rationale behind those decisions because of the impact that they have in their lives, which makes the revelations of the UK Covid inquiry all the more galling, not to me but to the families of the bereaved. Any early consensus that existed between political parties or between Governments did not last very long because it did not take long for political opportunism to creep in. Let us all forget that any suggestion of game playing during the pandemic, when asked, was met with incredulous denial. How dare you suggest that? Of course, I am keeping all my notes. Of course, I will hand them all over. So the current ferrore around WhatsApp messages, the source of so much anger out there, is very well justified. Let us start with the basics. Why would you actually delete messages in the first place? Is it because A, you might be embarrassed by the content? Or B, the messages might incriminate you some way in the future? If it truly was Scottish Government official policy to habitually delete messages, and that is a defence that we have heard ad nauseam all week from ministers, then why did some follow it to the letter and others not at all? Why would it be Government policy to delete messages in the first place? Why would you not want to keep a record of the pandemic? Not just messages, minutes of meetings were not taken place. The so-called gold command meetings, which we have heard so much about, were so gold that the finance secretary did not even know that they existed. She was signing the checks. The cabinet was a talking shop, not a decision-making body. Clearly, from the evidence that we have heard, challenging Nicola Sturgeon was met by a proverbial bullet. Let us think about that. If gold command did not decide anything, if cabinet did not vote on anything, then how can anyone trust the entire decision-making process? We were all told, to every one of us that passed those laws, that robust scientific evidence was driving the decisions. Trust us, they said, and we did. But it turns out that the clinical advisers were winging it as well. It is all there in black and white. This good old fashioned rami was conjured up by advisers. The endless UK versus us rhetoric that we heard, the holier-than-now charade on our TV sets every single day, but what about the resulting damage it did to the economy, to mental health, to hospitality, to education, to our young people? That is why all of this is so important. It is not about who called whom a clown. Frankly, I could not care less. I sat in this Parliament day in and day out during the darkest days of Covid, including July 2020, when emails from John Swinney, just released by the inquiry, showed that his office was more worried about Scotland's place in the EU than the 4,000 people who had already died of Covid. It is shameful, Presiding Officer, and it is shameful because of this. The trust that I gave, the trust that every MSP gave this Government, that the public gave this Government, has been shredded. Why? Because every Government Minister and every adviser knew fine well there would be a full inquiry into their actions. So what on earth were they thinking? They knew that conversations, no matter how trivial they seemed at the time, would be asked of them. Deleted, willfully or stupidly, perhaps both, it is hard to tell. Key evidence was destroyed. That is not unfortunate, it is not accidental, it was purposeful. Jamie Dawson QCKC, in his forensic questioning this week, has exposed something that we all knew about in the bubble. The stench of cover-up was rife in the civil service and it was rife in the Government. It was not just idle chit chat and gossip. If that was the case, then why were Government WhatsApp groups advising people everything is FOI-able, clear your chat? That is a phrase which will be a gut punch to anybody who lost the loved one. You cannot separate the menial from the meaningful if the messages do not exist in the first place. Nicola Sturgeon has reinvented the very definition of delete by saying, I did not retain them. The dictionary definition of delete is to remove or to obliterate. The only thing that has been obliterated this week is her reputation. We all knew this day would come. Reckoning is never comfortable and it is never easy, but the public sacrificed so much for their liberty and their safety. The question is, given what we now know about this Government, how many would do it again? I now call Jim Fairlie, to be followed by Pauline McNeill. When I read the Tory motion and listened to Douglas Ross's open remarks, it saddened me and sickened me at where our politics in Scotland have been lower to. My thoughts around the Covid inquiry that is on-going in the Scottish inquiry that is to come will not just give the grieving families but the whole country the knowledge as to what was done correctly, what we need to learn from so that from a future pandemic which will enable it to happen, we will have the means to be better prepared, that we are suitably funded, that we will have a better understanding of what worked well and how it could be improved. We will have better science data and modelling and use that data appropriately. We will have a workforce and system fit to cope. To do that, we must let the inquiries look at the substance of the decisions that were made at the time with the information that was available to the ministers at that time. In other words, let us avoid the snapshot headlines that are designed to misinform and allow the inquiries to do their job and give us that substantive information that we need to be better prepared for the next time. I was very pleased to hear during my time in the Covid recovery committee that a new system of procurement had been or was being implemented to ensure that PPE contracts and supplies were being manufactured and supplied on a rolling just-in-time model to ensure availability on long-term resilience, as well as promoting Scottish domestic contractors fill that so that we have resilience in that system. It is a very welcome adaptation and a learning from what was clearly a mistake during the pandemic. We found out that Scotland is an absolute world leader in data collection, but not as good as using that data to best effect, so let us get that done better. We also learned through a committee inquiry about the harms that people suffered as a result of long Covid, which are very real and difficult for sufferers and families alike. I would very much like to see where the Government is as for the recommendations that we made in that report, so that long Covid patients and their families can see some light at the end of what has for them been a very long, dark tunnel. That leads me to my next point, societal reactions to any future pandemic and even more or even more dangerous variant of what is currently circulating, because let us not forget that this virus is very much still with us. Ultimately, it was that societal co-operation that made sure that we got through this pandemic as well as we could have hoped for, and it will be that societal working again in the future that will be vital to make sure that we can do it, whether it is 10 years, 50 years or 100 years down the line. Those lessons have to be at our guiding star. I want to say now and add my name to the record of everyone else who has expressed the sadness and condoneses that I am no doubt we all feel for the brave families who lost loved ones to the virus or had a usual grieving process through other losses curtailed by the risk of the virus spreading. My mum died in May 2020 and her funeral was nothing more than putting her coffin in the ground, saying a few words from a priest that could barely be heard because of social distancing and going home. Those human interactions, the hugs, the tears, the reminiscing, all the things that we do as humans to help grief were forbidden and I have no doubt there will be long-lasting issues for many people who still suffer from that and ability to grieve properly, and my heart was out to each and every one of them. No, I won't. I saw more of the Fraser talking about the loss of his parents over the weekend and I extend that thought to him as well as to everyone else who has suffered. I am sure that everyone in this chamber, after all, we are all human, regardless of the job we do, and we have all suffered from the effects and after effects of one of nature's most deadly wetlands. It's for all those reasons that this motion is saddened. We have a Tory party motion brought to the chamber to try to pre-empt the findings of a formal set of inquiries that are costing millions of pounds and are being done diligently and with purpose to ensure that we are better prepared for the next time. We must let the full course of those inquiries do their work so that we all get the benefit of the lessons to come from them. We are in opposition, member after member, in the chamber yesterday, decrying a Scottish Government motion looking at the opportunities and how we can improve the lot for all the people throughout our relationship with the EU, saying that it was a waste of money, a waste of parliamentary time, and yet they have all piled into this debate to try to make capital out of a horrendous situation that we had to collectively deal with. By and large, those who were here agreed with the action, and yet particularly members sitting over there who constantly talk about both of Scotland's Governments refused to challenge the partying, PPE, fraud and scandal-ridden Government of their Westminster party. I say that hypocrisy just saddens rather than angers me in the context of the debate that we are having today. I have watched some of the debates at the time of the pandemic starting to really require responses and the conversations in this chamber around bed capacity in hospitals and to everyone agreed that those beds needed to be released to deal with the pandemic. I would ask all of those members who were here in this chamber at that time what they have done differently with the information that they had at that time, and they supported the Government in trying to clear those beds in fear of the coming pandemic. That is also the crucial point that I want to make. I think that we need to be considering what we did. Did we have the right information? How do we use the data that we are so good at collecting? We can do all that now with 2020 hindsight. We certainly couldn't do that at the height of the pandemic. If we allow the inquirits to do their jobs, perhaps we will get those answers and ensure that that societal trust that I have spoken about, which our First Minister gained through monumental efforts of her and her entire cabinet, can be justified and repeated if we ever needed to do it again in our lifetime. Thank you, Mr Fairlie. I now call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Stephanie Callaghan. I wrote an article in early 2020 about a constituent who had done everything right, isolated with her husband, followed all the other rules religiously. Our husband contracted Covid and he was struggling to breathe and he was sent by ambulance to the Queen Elizabeth hospital where he was for 20 days. She had to wait by the phone for a call each afternoon to have learned of his progress. She was not allowed to visit, she was not offered Zoom or any way of seeing her husband, she could not phone in such as the pressures on the nursing staff, understandably. Till one day she received a call to say that he died from Covid sitting alone in her home. Imagine the trauma of losing your husband of 20 years, you had no idea he was actually dying till you got the call. There was no one present due to the restrictions, no follow-up, no bereavement and no formal counselling until I got involved as our MSP. I vowed then, as I am going to do now, to see answers for people like her. She will not get a specific answer to this, but what she is entitled to are broader, bigger answers to the approach that was taken, because I am aware that other hospitals and English hospitals—I am not clear myself why this was the case—did allow some families in PPE to go and visit their families. It is only by examining the circumstances of the Covid period and examining the decisions that we took and the principles that we applied who took those decisions, how those decisions were recorded, that we will have any chance of understanding the lessons that we need to learn from that horrible period. Why the chief scientist said in his evidence that the Government ignored their own advice, particularly in relation to schools, has to be answered. Furthermore, doctors were clear to me that there was a policy during Covid of not referring those over age 65 to hospitals. You still have to get an answer from ministers when they were questioned. I felt that they were unable to answer a critical question that goes to the very heart of how human rights were applied during the Covid period. Who took this decision? Who took the decision on the do-not-resuscitate policy? Those are answers that we all desperately need. That is why we require to examine how decisions were made and how they were recorded. Bob Doris, in his contribution, I have to say to Bob, if he is still listening, who would be in the shoes of the former First Minister or Jason Leitch, the national clinical director? I felt for them all during that period because they had heavy decisions to make, but they were the people in charge making life and death decisions. We must be able to examine every single decision that they made that resulted in serious decisions about the size of weddings, the size of funerals, health service arrangements and what I have just spoken about. They must be accountable, and that means that they must be prepared to provide all the relevant evidence. While thousands of families across Scotland did the loss of a loved one and people dealt with mental health issues by being restricted, it is really important to look back. People at the top, the First Minister, Government ministers and officials, it seems were deliberately and purposely deleting vital information. It looks like we will never see this. What concerns me is that it is not just random. It does seem quite organised the way that this was done. For me, essential question for Government is where did this policy come from? Why did some officials delete all their messages? Some officials deleted some of their messages? Some have kept all of their messages? Why is this such a mess? Why was there no policy? I do ask the civil service to listen in to Government ministers to protect the Government ministers and the Administration. All notion seems to have completely gone. How can we judge the handling of all the decisions if we are not to be provided with this information? On the what is app deletion policy of the relaying advice to ministers by the backdoor, by private accounts, it is not in the spirit of the Public Records Act, not in the spirit of freedom of information and it is not in the spirit of what we were told back then in 2020. There must be proper record keeping and there must, I would have thought, at least be one cabinet decision discussion around this. Quite honestly, who does delete the messages at bedtime? I am sorry.  It does not sound credible and that is what the national clinical director and other ministers—I am sorry, I do not have time, I would love to give way on this. I am not out to specifically criticise anyone who I know of the heavy burden, but come on, really give us some evidence that we can believe. Give us some answers that do sound credible because the accusation is that it was done on an industrial scale and that is a worry for this Parliament and it is a worry for the law. What we have heard about the gatekeeping on freedom of information clearly exposes that it is not worth the paper that it is written on and has worked to be done at a future date. The culture of cover-up was present long before Covid on the Queen Elizabeth hospital university scandal, on the ferry fiasco and on the steel scandal that led the way to lack of transparency during the most important period of Scotland's modern times. We must do better than that. I call on everyone to co-operate with this inquiry, give the public the answers that they deserve. Thank you, Ms McNeill. I now call Stephanie Callaghan to be followed by Rose McCallam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today, I speak in support of the Scottish Government amendment to the UK Covid inquiry in Scotland motion. As we consider the decision-making process and outcomes of the pandemic response in our nation, as we know, Presiding Officer, the Covid-19 pandemic has been the most serious public health crisis of our time, affecting millions of lives and livelihoods across the world. In Scotland, we have faced many challenges and difficulties, but we have also shown resilience, solidarity and compassion in the face of adversity. Individuals and communities right across Scotland stepped up to look after each other and include their children in that. While our young people did miss some school lessons, they learned some really big life lessons about the things that really matter, looking after family, friends, neighbours and strangers too. I trust that the comfort of human touch and the value of hugging each other tight will never be lost to them. The Scottish Government was guided by the best available scientific evidence and advice, available at that point in time without the benefit of hindsight and acted swiftly and decisively to protect the health and wellbeing of Scotland's people. Scotland pursued a zero Covid strategy even to eliminate the virus entirely in 2020 and lifted lockdown rules more gradually than the rest of the UK, following a cautious and careful approach. Testing capacity was expanded, ensuring that everyone with symptoms of a respiratory infection including Covid-19 could access a test. A successful vaccination programme was rolled out, offering the vaccine to every eligible person and providing boosters to all who needed them. The inquiry will rightly examine the early challenges around guidance, personal protective equipment and care home admissions. However, as Jeane Freeman told the inquiry, you cannot magic out of thin air appropriate buildings, appropriate kit and skilled individuals. The learnings that flow from the current inquiry will support future Governments to improve planning and offer better protection to us all. Throughout the pandemic, our First Minister kept the public well informed, communicating clearly and transparently about the rules and restrictions, the discs and benefits and the rationale and evidence behind decision making. Various channels and platforms were used, such as the daily briefings, social media, websites, leaflets and posters, to reach out to different audiences and communities. It took its toll—the public could see it in her face—but it was absolutely necessary. The Scottish Government is rightly taking the time to listen to the views and feedback of the public through a range of consultations and surveys. Recognising the pandemic as a global challenge that requires a co-ordinated and co-operative response has also been key, hence the need to work closely and collaboratively with other UK nations, as well as international partners to share information, resources and best practices. The different circumstances and needs of each nation must also be respected, and it is right for Scotland's Government to exercise devolved powers and responsibilities and to tailor responses to specific situations in Scotland. Sadly, the Tory benches disagree, but that is to be expected. We cannot be complacent or self-congratulatory, and the Scottish Government acknowledges that there were mistakes and shortcomings, committing to learning from them and improving and welcoming the UK Covid inquiry to Scotland, because conducting a thorough and independent investigation into the pandemic response across our nations is really important. The Scottish Government must continue to co-operate fully and openly with the inquiry, providing evidence and documents and answering questions from the inquiry panel. Today's debate feels premature, and, as we have heard, the independence of the inquiry is central, and politicians attempting to pre-empt the conclusions are really unhelpful. No, I won't. Instead, we should let the inquiry get on with its work, as we have heard, and act accordingly when the recommendations are released, preparing to accept any criticisms and suggestions for improvement. I trust that the inquiry will also recognise the efforts and achievements of the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland in tackling the pandemic, identifying strengths as well as weaknesses and drawing together future lessons and implications. The Covid-19 pandemic is not over yet. We are still living with the virus, and we still face uncertainties and challenges ahead. We need to remain vigilant and adaptable and to continue to follow the public health guidance and advice, and we need to support each other and look after ourselves, showing kindness and compassion to those who have been affected by the pandemic, because grieving families are at the absolute heart of this, and it has affected all of us. In closing, the Scottish Government must continue to do everything in its power to protect the health and lives of people in Scotland, support the recovery and renewal of our society and economy, remain transparent and accountable to the public, and strive to engage and involve people in the decision-making process. Co-operation and co-operation with other UK nations and the international community will also remain key as we continue to contribute to the global fight against the pandemic. Let's focus where we should be focusing. Thank you. Everyone that I have spoken to recently is dismayed about the Covid-19 inquiry revelations. I have been told many stories of how decisions made in this place have had a detrimental effect on the health of someone, either themselves or someone that they love. One lady, a former nurse, who worked through the pandemic, is now living with long Covid. She has difficulty breathing, which makes her tired. That means that she has limited time and that her energy is sufficient to do what most people would consider basic tasks. Even walking to the local shop can be a challenge. Not only has her health been negatively impacted by this, but she has also been dismissed from the nursing job that she loves. She freely admits that there was nothing else that she could do as she simply no longer could do the job. She now spends most of her time in her house for fear that she will simply run out of energy at the wrong time. She has lost her health, her livelihood and her freedom, Presiding Officer. She has been failed. Another person has shared with me the downward trajectory of her grandmother, an elderly lady living in a care home, who could not understand why her loving family, who regularly visited, simply stopped coming. The effects of the lack of this simple, familiar human contact had been disturbing. Otherwise, healthily, but elderly lady became fragile and withdrawn as the feelings of rejection manifested themselves in depression. No number of visits after lockdown eased repaired the mental health damage to this lady. What should have been a resting and peaceful last few years became a disturbing descent of frailty and distress. Presiding Officer, she was failed. I have previously spoken in this chamber about my own experiences due to the changes to healthcare provision that came about as a direct consequence of the Covid-19 decisions. Cancer treatment provisions for some simply stopped overnight. I knew that as a global pandemic had hit our nation, certain sacrifices by everyone would have to be made. As a family, we knew that that meant a change in healthcare priorities was essential. Considering the type of cancer and how slim the chances were of extending any quality of life rather than duration of life, we accepted the changes as graciously as anyone could, knowing that death was certain and imminent. Presiding Officer, we were failed. We were all failed because, even though it was presumed, to find out that decisions made imposing sacrifices on the people of Scotland were made even in part for political gain belittles the trust and faith that this country put in this SNP Government. To have former First Minister's chief of staff state, my reason for setting a timeframe for them to answer us on furlough is purely political, especially as we expect the answer to be no, it looks awful for them.  To have Nicola Sturgeon suggested that the Professor of Public Health, Diva Chériar, messaged privately about proposals on managing the next steps of the pandemic, and then with the former First Minister replied, do not worry about protocol and continue, you can send it to me privately before divulging a private SNP email address is frankly dishonourable. To have Nicola Sturgeon advised that nothing would be off limits for the public Covid inquiry when she said, I think if you understand statutory public inquiries you would know that even if I wasn't prepared to give that assurance, which for the avoidance of doubt I am, then I wouldn't have the ability. To have Ken Thomson, the then director general for strategy and external affairs, write that plausible deniability are my middle names, and to continually refer to messages being FOI-able highlights just how concerning the content of the messages were to decision makers. Knowing that deleting messages would hide FOI information and blatantly advising people to do so can only lead us to ask the following questions. What was in the deleted messages? Why was the former First Minister's assurances not met in full because they should have been, and how on earth can the general public ever believe this Government again? I now call Stuart McMillan, who will be the last speaker in the open debate, and Mr McMillan is joining us remotely. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I have listened to the full debate so far, and there were some excellent contributions, including from Alex Rowley and Bob Doris. The line in the Tory motion in front of us, and I quote it, calls for the Scottish Government sorry, calls for the Parliament's Covid-19 recovery committee to be reconstituted for the purpose of providing Parliament's scrutiny of evidence revealed by the inquiry. I think it says more about the partisan politics than actually getting to the substance of the debate. The reality for anyone who cares about the reality is that this debate is just an attempt by the Conservatives to distract from the complete chaos that is engulfing their own party in Westminster. Presiding Officer, every constituent has a story to tell with regard to Covid-19. Every single member of this Parliament has their story to tell with regard to the Covid-19 pandemic. The public are engaging with the UK Covid-19 inquiry, and they will make up their own minds as more information comes to light and when the final report is published. As we know, there will be the Scottish inquiry and I welcome the fact that 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. 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 prevent suffering in the future. We have also heard today that the Scottish Government will examine and consider closely the recommendations that both the Scottish and UK public inquiries will make. However, I am sure that we can all unite in our hopes that we never, ever have to face such a pandemic again in our lifetimes. Ultimately, the current Covid inquiry is performing an important job, so for the Tories to attempt through the inquiry's job, it does a disservice to those who lost loved ones and also who want answers. It does appear to me and I know to others that the Tories attempt, near the attempts to be a judge, jury and also an executioner on one Government, when they consistently remind us that Scotland has two Governments. It says it all about their naked politicking and such an important issue. I am firmly of the belief that the current and future inquiry need to undertake their roles independently of political interference. I also welcome the fact that the first months of comments last week that he has commissioned an externally led review into the Scottish Government's use of mobile messaging apps and non-corporate technology. As one of the members who served on the Harassment Committee in the last session, it has been touched upon already in this debate. I recognise the political game that has been played today. It seems to me that the Tories who want this parliamentary session to end the same way as the last session did. Quite frankly, it was not the Parliament's finest hour with the leaks and other activities that came from that committee. If the Tories are suggesting for one minute that the current independent inquiry is not up to the job, I think that it says more about them than the inquiry itself. One of the points that has been raised with me before and also during the current inquiry is that they are conserving the billions of pounds of public money given to businesses that actually have links to the Conservative Party. I am sure that they will be public support for a public inquiry into this point alone, but the level of alleged fraudulent activity puts the very situation here into perspective. As the Tories have been leading on committee inquiry after committee inquiry into the ferries, I am sure that they will be happy to support a public inquiry into the billions of pounds that have been given to the companies with Tory donor links. Information before and during this inquiry seems to highlight fraud on an industrial scale. Ten billion of PPE costs have been off and the use of the VIP lane was ruled as being unlawful by the courts. In order to forget that the actual deals to businesses owned by Tory donors, we are seeing a high profile case now under investigation, and I agree with the comments from the Deputy First Minister earlier in calling for the establishment of a UK COVID corruption commissioner. In addition to this was the parting that was going on in Downing Street and Boris Johnson and Richard Sunak, who went to court to try to conceal their messages from the inquiry. The public anger and frustration is clear with these examples alone. I could also include the fact that it was the UK Government who spent their time plotting against independence in the middle of a global pandemic, and some will agree with this action, and others will certainly disagree with it, of course. I am saying also that dealing with a pandemic should have been the sole purpose of government, irrespective of a parliament and who was in power. The public deserved absolutely no less. I am about to conclude my contribution. It is important that the public is fully aware of the following with regard to the current inquiry. The Scottish Government's messages handed over to the UK Government's 19 inquiry will be starkly different to those of Westminster politicians. The Scottish Government has ensured that the Government has released 28,000 messages to it, and when it comes to the First Minister's witness statement, it includes reams of WhatsApp messages that are unredacted. That is, of course, in very stark contrast to the actions of a Prime Minister who not only dragged the inquiry through the court but has refused to hand over his own WhatsApp messages. I will be voting against the Tory motion tonight, as it delivers absolutely nothing to help families of those who sadly lost their loved ones during the pandemic. Let the two inquiries do their work, their living and the deceased deserve that. The vital precursor to this debate mentioned only once is the First Minister's concession to the Covid inquiry that the SNP Government's handling of vital evidence has been an, I quote, frankly, poor. He did offer an unreserved apology. The real heart of the debate is whether that poor practice is actually reflective of an endemic culture. Labour contends that it is, that this is just the most egregious example of 17 years of secrecy and cover-up. We are right to worry as a country about the degradation of our governing institutions, ensuring that those are maintained is a key and critical function of Parliament. The evidence of recent days, gleaned from the past SNP ministers, has been something else entirely. It has provoked real and visceral anger on behalf of Covid bereaved families. Those are their words. Nicola Sturgeon projected a daily image of sincerity in wanting to do right by the people of Scotland during the pandemic, that carefully crafted image has been left shattered by the hands of Ms Sturgeon herself, the words of the families themselves. The families, speaking this morning before the evidence, predicted the sorrow and the tears that they knew would follow. They are not moved by it, they are not convinced by it. It merely compounds the betrayal that they feel. Colleagues have been right to highlight the lasting effects of the pandemic. Long Covid, a further derailed NHS that the Government has singularly failed to help recover, the impact on school attainment and school attendance, profound cultural shifts in our behaviours and our economy. Alex Rowley rightly set out that a parliamentary committee could focus on the genuine future changes that would arise from those public inquiries. Mr Rowley rightly shared Jackie Baillie's view that this Scottish Government's Handling of Harassment Complaints Committee, otherwise known as the Salmond Committee, found it impossible to extract evidence from this Government. It was deliberately obstructed, it was misled and nobody could seemingly recall anything. This is a culture, it is endemic, it is pervasive and it is insidious. The salmon scandal, the Lochaber smelter, Ferguson Marine and the ferries debacle, ministers on the front bench calling these lies. The Ferguson Marine and ferries debacle, no minutes, no minutes, forgotten conversations, missing documents, we have heard it time and time again. Presiding Officer, the Queen Elizabeth University hospital scandal, backing the cover-up rather than backing the families. A growing queue of information commissioners past and present lining up to denounce the Scottish Government's Handling of Freedom of Information. All of this does matter and the WhatsApp message has been deleted does matter too. It did not happen by accident, it was a calculated deliberate attempt to destroy vital evidence to a public inquiry. Everybody knew, everybody knows that Boris Johnson is a clown. Nobody thinks that of the former First Minister. This was deliberate and it was considered. SNP backbenchers have said that these messages aren't just chitchat and gossip. The evidence is clear that they are not. Nicola Sturgeon and Liz Lloyd developing policy on WhatsApp. The First Minister deleted the exchanges but, thankfully, others did not get the memo, so instead we get to see the evidence.  Nicola Sturgeon was asked again and again this morning whether she had deleted messages, obfuscated, prevaricated but eventually Jamie Dawson KC winnowed away the chaff. Yes, she said, yes. That matters more than the tears. It does matter because the messages that we have seen tells us, as Pauline McNeill put it, that we must be able to examine every single decision that was made and they must be accountable. Of the few messages that we have seen by those ministers who did not get the memo or who did obey the do not destroy instruction, whether by mistake or honest commitment, we get to see the culture of the relationship between ministers and the civil service, which has become entirely inappropriate. Former ministers and former senior servants aghast at the blurred lines between this Government and the civil service. That matters too, and I will tell you why. Think of the LGML scandal in Tayside at the moment, when we have a senior medical officer involved in that situation, and it is quite apparent to those people the lack of separation between the Government and civil servants in that regard. It is fundamentally betraying the trust of the people that are involved in that scandal that they can get the true answers that they require. That is the legacy of—no, thank you, I am in my final few moments otherwise I would be happy to do so. That is the legacy of an endemic culture of secrecy and cover-up. We must have a Covid corruption commissioner in the UK to get to the heart of the toxic consequences of the Tory Government, but here we require change too and we get it with a new Government. I have one online, but I will take Ms Bailey's first point of order. Forgive me, Presiding Officer. Keith Brown accused Michael Marra of lying and repeated it when challenged. Do you consider it appropriate for him to apologise? I thank Ms Bailey for her contribution. I did not hear that. All I can say is that I did not hear it. I am not saying that it was not said, I am just saying that I did not hear it. All members know that they are required. Could we not have further sedentary cross-bench discussion while I am speaking? I would remind all members of the requirement to treat each other with courtesy and respect at all times, and members are quite well aware of the rules around language in this chamber. I now call Bob Doris for a point of order, and Bob Doris is joining us online. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On a point of order, earlier in the debate, Pauline and Neil MSP inadvertently suggested that I was not following the debate when she namedchecked me during her contribution in relation to ministerial accountability. I am not sure what mechanism exists other than trying to intervene on said member, but when one intervenes remotely, that is not registered on the official reports to any person watching the contributions this afternoon, and they would inadvertently think that, as a member of this Parliament, I had made a contribution and a speech during a very serious debate, and they are not following the rest of the debate. That would be totally disrespectful to the victims of Covid and their families and everyone else with a key interest in this debate. I notice now on the record, Presiding Officer, that I did follow the debate, but is there any other procedures where this can be rectified in the future, so that I am not actually taking up the time of yourself and the chamber to put these matters on the record in such a way? Perhaps, Ms McNeill, I could deal with Mr Doris's point of order first, and then I will come to Ms McNeill. What I would say to Mr Doris is that it is not a matter for the chair. The member has made his point, and the matter is on the record. I call Pauline McNeill for a point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just want to put on the record that there is no way, in my contribution, that I intend, in any possible way, to infer that Bob Doris was not listening to me. It is something that you see in a debate if the person is still listening. That is the only remark that I made. I am honestly quite astounded that a member would come on and make that point. If the point is being made, Presiding Officer, that to safeguard Bob Doris's point that he wishes it to be known that he watched the debate throughout, that is something entirely different. By hold, Presiding Officer, I would accept my response that I was in no way being disrespectful to him and never would be. Thank you, Ms McNeill. What I would say also to Ms McNeill is that it is not a matter for the chair, but Ms McNeill has helped to clarify the matter, which will also be on the record. I now intend to call George Adam Minister to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government. At this point, Presiding Officer, I wish to echo and reiterate the important points made by the Deputy First Minister in her opening remarks. Notably, they need to never lose sight of the impact of the pandemic for people, and particularly those who lost loved ones. During the debate, there was much said about how we went about the business, but one of the things that I want to mention at this point is that the Deputy First Minister said during her opening remarks was that that is why the First Minister has not only apologised for any hurt caused by the Scottish Government prior handling of requests for the inquiry, but he also announced an external lead review on the use of mobile messaging apps and non-corporate technology. At this point, I would like to go on about—as most people have spoken during this debate—about the impact on families and in our communities across Scotland. Most of the speakers spoke about this in particular. Ruth Maguire, in a very timely and interesting intervention, brought up the fact that she felt that everything was just a wee bit too much. The families themselves, listening to the debate, would think that this was probably not what they wanted to hear. I think that she is right about that. Jim Fairlie, as we all know, has a Covid story. Jim Fairlie talked about his mum's funeral and how that meant to him. Other members mentioned that as well and what affected them. Stuart McMillan talked about all our constituents having stories, and that is true. I was not going to mention it because I mentioned it in a previous debate about my mother-in-law, Rosemary, having Covid and dying in the REH in Paisley. Everything has been so personal in this debate. I want people to understand that, when I make these decisions and I am moving forward, we have all got something that has happened to us during that. Rosemary died in 2021 when she had Covid. I remember seeing her when she was going to the ambulance. We could not go down to the house. We knew that she was going to the ambulance, and we knew that either feeling would never see her again at that stage. Things became difficult for us because not only was—we have heard of some other members when they spoke of not being able to see their—I think that Pauline McNeill brought it up—with regard to not seeing their loved ones being able to see them because of the Covid restrictions. It was even doubly for us, because Stacey, as you all know, has multiple sclerosis, and therefore has an autoimmune disease and therefore our immune immunity is compromised. At that time, things had got a wee bit looser and we were able to go and see the individuals. I had to make a decision there of losing one of the most important women in my life or two of them. I just want people to know that none of us here in the Scottish Government take this lightly. We all have these stories. We all know how families—and we feel for the families and everything that has happened to them as well. Some of the contributions that we have had from members today highlighted that. John Mason took us back to the dark days of when we went into lockdown and how difficult everything was. He took us back and mentioned how we never knew that this Parliament did not even have a process to continue business, which quickly happened during that process and was very important for us. Kevin Stewart, again, spoke about the families themselves and how they are always the most important ones in this. The pandemic presented exceptional pressures for every single one of us. I am particularly grateful for the work of our civil servants, scientific advisers and clinicians who, for supporting this Government to make decisions that were informed by the best available advice during the most challenging circumstances. It is important that we learn lessons from our collective experience of the pandemic and that this process of reflection in learning will help us to prepare better for any future emergencies. Our approach to Government understands and embraces the need to make information available about policies and decisions and to be accountable to this Parliament, to the public and to listen to all voices. We have and will continue to work to ensure that the lessons from the pandemic are learned. That is why, during the pandemic, the previous First Minister, members of the Cabinet, public health officials stood day after day in St Andrew's house providing information and the responses to the pandemic and answering questions about the approach. Indeed, the former First Minister led over 250 media briefings between March 2020 and the end of 2021, in which she answered questions about the Scottish Government's management of the pandemic. During the pandemic, we understood the critical importance of ensuring that people were clear about the decisions that were made, the reasons for the sacrifices that were being asked to make and the risks to public health posed by the virus. We all know that it was an exceptional time, particularly for Scottish Government ministers and officials who worked round the clock to respond to the global pandemic. We will all remember how scared we all were then, how we did not know what the virus was and how it would impact on us and all of our families and our jobs and the economy. People will remember even the symptoms that we were first told about changed as more evidence was gathered about the new disease. The Government's aim was to suppress transmission of the Covid virus, to save lives, to save jobs and to keep people safe. Exceptional times required exceptional measures, and the Parliament had to consider legislation that was totally unprecedented. That included the UK coronavirus bill, which the Parliament supported unanimously, and the subsequent Scottish emergency bills, of course, that many sets of regulations that changed the way that we all lived our lives. The Scottish Government did not make decisions and measures in isolation of the impacts that could have. While still in lockdown in April 2020, the Scottish Government set out its approach to making future decisions on its pandemic response. That was to marshal the harms of the pandemic, including the effects of any restrictions that were imposed in the four harms category. Direct health from the virus, wider health harms, societal harms and economic harms. Decisions made would involve an assessment of the impact proposed measures on each of those harms, therefore ensuring that those measures were proportionate and necessary to control the spread of the virus. As the Deputy First Minister has already set out, the Scottish Government is co-operating fully with both the Scottish and UK Covid inquiries. I would remind the chamber that more than 19,000 documents have been handed over to the UK inquiry, and the Scottish Government has already provided nearly 28,000 messages. I am just closing at the moment, thank you very much. As we explained, this is a very important debate, and I have to ensure that we get our point across, because there has been much said during this debate. As explained during the inquiry last week, if political pressures were used, it was not for constitutional reasons, it was based on those— Members, we will listen to the member who asked the floor, who is the minister, please. Thank you. It was based on the four harms, for example, ensuring that furlough was available to save jobs during lockdown in Scotland and making sure that our people were paid. Politics was not at the forefront of ministers' minds during the pandemic, it was the suppression of a new— Minister, please assume your seats. I have already said to the Conservative benches that they should have the courtesy to listen to the member who has the floor, which is the minister for parliamentary business. Ministers' minds during the pandemic was on the suppression of the new deadly virus. Should different decisions have been taken, possibly yes, but we can say that about many decisions with the benefit of hindsight. All at the time of the pandemic, elected members of the Government took the best decisions they could with the evidence they had and with the best intentions for the people of Scotland at the times to the forefront. How many in this chamber at that time were glad it was not them having to make these decisions day in, day out? Presiding officer, there has been a lot of talk today and that is not grounded in reality. Some Opposition members have chosen not to just use hindsight but to rewrite history of a time where people not just in Scotland and in the UK but across the world were scared of a deadly virus. For Scotland at least, those changes took the best decisions they could, those in charge took the best decisions they could at all times and made the right decisions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The words are not grounded in reality, sum up the contribution that we have just heard from the minister. A wide range of issues are covered in the debate this afternoon, so let me try to bring together some of the threads and the different contributions that we have heard and sum up the key points that were made in our motion and in the debate. John Mason made a better shift than anybody on his front bench in terms of defending the Scottish Government's approach. However, the key point that I do not think that he understood or did not address is that our concern here is about transparency. In line with much else done with this SNP Government, information has had to be dragged out of it in connection with the decisions that were made in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic and what has been dragged out has made dismal reading. There is a culture of cover-up and secrecy in this Government and we should all be grateful to the UK Covid inquiry and, in particular, to Jamie Dawson, KC and his team for the excellent work that they have done shining a light on the darker workings of this Government. What has been revealed is that public and Parliament were misled by the former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and other members of the Government about information that would be provided to the inquiry. Both the Deputy First Minister and Mr Radden made great playing of the fact that 28,000 messages were handed over to the inquiry. Matt Hancock, the former UK health secretary, handed over himself over 100,000 messages, which puts into context the figure of 28,000. Let's remind ourselves of what Nicola Sturgeon said when she was asked if anything would be off limits to the inquiry back in August 2021. She said this. I think that if you understand statutory public inquiries you would know that even if I wasn't prepared to give that assurance, which for the volumes of doubt I am, then I wouldn't have that ability. So we can take that as a clear promise that all relevant information will be provided and that then Deputy First Minister John Swinney said something very similar. When asked about the same issue, the current First Minister said this. 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. So there we have it. From the former First Minister, the former Deputy First Minister and the current First Minister, clear and unequivocal undertakings that all information will be handed over and yet now we know that that was not done. That promise was not kept. We now know that Nicola Sturgeon deleted all her WhatsApp messages during the pandemic period, confirmed in a note to the UK inquiry and we also learned that John Swinney did not retain his messages and had an auto-delete function on them. Mr Swinney yesterday claimed that he had been hearing to the Scottish Government's mobile messaging policy introduced in November 2021, urging the deletion of WhatsApp messages after 30 days. Crucially, that was after undertakings had been given by Nicola Sturgeon that all relevant messages would be preserved and provided. We have heard in this debate from SNP speakers that relevant information in those messages was recorded elsewhere. It was transferred on to other systems of recording. However, without the original WhatsApp messages, we simply cannot know if that is the case. Nor can the UK Covid inquiry. We, the Scottish public, are left trying to piece together the information from that which was properly recorded. I will have the member's brief. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Does he share my concern at the incongruity between what we heard from Nicola Sturgeon today saying that she has been routinely deleting all of her private messages on the advice of civil servants since 2007 and that the reality that the committee that he and I served on in the salmon inquiry actually received WhatsApp messages from Nicola Sturgeon herself? That is a very fair point for Mr Cole-Hamilton. I heard today the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, saying that there was no policy in the Scottish Government to delete WhatsApp messages, despite assertions made yesterday to the inquiry by Mr Swinney. Not every minister has gone down the route of deleting their WhatsApp messages. Yesterday, the former Finance Secretary, Kate Forbes, said that she had retained all of hers and that she was not even aware of the deletion policy until it was drawn to her attention in January 2022. We also learned from Kate Forbes that she was surprised that crucial gold command meetings were not minute during the pandemic, despite the importance of the matters being discussed. Even more concerning is the position of the current First Minister, Humza Yousaf. In October 2023, he told the Covid inquiry that he had deleted all of his messages for security reasons. When asked by the media about the same issue on October 30, he denied press reports that he had been deleting his WhatsApps and said that he had retained them all and had them over to the inquiry. On November 2, he made a second submission to the inquiry handing over his WhatsApps, which were on a phone handset that he no longer used but had been able to recover. On November 16, he made a third submission to the inquiry, claiming that his WhatsApps, covering the critical four-month period at the start of the pandemic, had been completely wiped out. On January 25, he told Parliament that he had handed over his messages to the inquiry, despite, on the contrary to what he previously said. Have you found all of this as difficult to follow as I have? That is the point to the chaos and confusion at the heart of the Scottish Government and the weaknesses in its record keeping. That is just from Government ministers. What we have seen from senior civil servants and senior advisers was them joking with each other about the need to delete their messages, particularly so that they could not be recovered under freedom of information. That was a deliberate attempt at cover-up to deprive the public of a view to the decision-making process in Government, which must be unforgivable and may even be criminal. No wonder that the Scottish Government wanted to cover up what was being discussed, given all that we have heard. Despite claims from Nicola Sturgeon that decisions were not being made on WhatsApp, we now know that that was not true, because, according to what we heard from Liz Lloyd last week, key choices about the number of individuals allowed at weddings were being settled, it appears, in a WhatsApp exchange between the former First Minister and her chief of staff. It is not a decision taken by the cabinet or based, it seems, on any sound, scientific or medical advice. We also saw Nicola Sturgeon suggesting that the Professor of Public Health, Debbie Sridhar, should message her privately with advice to her private SNP email address, which would not be subject to freedom of information. But worst of all, we now know that the Scottish Government is pursuing a political agenda and advancing the cause of independence throughout the pandemic period. As both Ross McCall and Pam Gozo reminded us, we learned last week from Liz Lloyd that she wanted to start a good old-fashioned rami with the UK Government because she was tired of thinking about sick people. That just sums up what was behind the Scottish Government's approach here. More interested in independence, more interested in picking fights with Westminster than being concerned for those suffering and dying here in Scotland. We know that, in June 2020, the cabinet agreed to consider restarting its push for Scottish independence. On that very same day in a press conference, the First Minister denied suggestions that she could be using the pandemic for politics saying that it would be a betrayal of the people of Scotland to campaign for independence during Covid. However, on that very same day, that is exactly what they were discussing at the cabinet. Is that not a deceitful position? I do not know what it is. I would say this. Yes, of course I will give way. I wonder if Murdo Fraser saw and listened to Michael Gove's evidence on Monday. When Michael Gove talked about a Cabinet paper that he had taken to the UK Government Cabinet about the benefits of the union and using the pandemic to promote that, now, if he is going to be even handed here, which I am sure he will be, surely he cannot criticise one Government on the one hand but not recognise what that looks like to the public. Surely that would be a fair thing to recognise that the attack line that he is giving is exactly what Michael Gove admitted to on Monday. Murdo Fraser? No, what Mr Gove was doing was responding to the politicisation of the pandemic by the SNP Government. That is what he was doing. However, the worst example that we have of politicisation came out this afternoon. Mr Adam should listen to this and Jamie Greene referred to it in his contribution. This afternoon, we learned from the inquiry that an email was sent from the Deputy First Minister's account on 20 July 2020, expressing an extreme concern about putting Spain on the quarantine list. That is a direct quote from the Deputy First Minister's email account, because the Spanish Government will conclude that it is entirely political. It will not forget that it is a real possibility that it will never approve EU membership for an independent Scotland as a result. It will never approve EU membership for an independent Scotland as a result. There we have it in black and white. The prospects of an independent Scotland joining the EU were more important than public health considerations when they came to the decision-making on Covid by this Government. Mr Fraser, could you please bring your remarks to a close? Please, Mr Fraser, your time is up. All this tells us, Presiding Officer, if we need a proper and further investigation into all the concerns that we have heard today. Yes, the inquiries will do their work, as SNP members have called for. However, it could be years before we see a report from the UK Covid inquiry, and the Scottish one is at an even earlier stage. In the meantime, let's see the Covid-19 committee in this Parliament re-establish, and let the current First Minister, the former First Minister and the former Deputy First Minister, refer themselves to the independent adviser on the ministerial code. That is the way that the Covid beread families and the public can get the answers that they deserve, and that is the way that we will all get a better understanding of what was going on in Government at the time that they are so desperate to try and cover up. That is the point that is made in our motion today, as I would urge the Parliament to agree it. That concludes the debate on UK Covid-19 inquiry revelations, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1-0-0 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam Minister to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. No member has asked to speak on the motion. The question is that motion 1-0-0 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is there for agreed. The next item of business is consideration of seven parliamentary bureau motions. I again ask Minister George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 1-0-2-1 on approval of SI, 1-0-2-2 and 1-0-2-3 on approval of SSIs, 1-0-2-4 and 1-0-2-5 on approval of laid documents, 1-0-2-6 on designation of lead committee and 1-0-2-7 on committee membership. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and all moved. Thank you Minister. The question on these motions will be put at decision time and there are, in fact, four questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Shona Robison is agreed to the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie will fall by way of preemption? The first question is that amendment 1-0-1, 0.5, in the name of Shona Robison, which seeks to amend motion 1-0-1, 0, in the name of Douglas Ross on UK Covid-19 inquiry revelations be agreed? Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed and therefore we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.