The benefit of being in the Parliament for so long is that you get to see patterns of behaviour over time. The past 16 years of the SNP have been instructive. What I have learned is that these are not isolated incidents or even—at their most generous interpretation—mistakes; this is a systematic approach to government. It is an approach that is characterised by secrecy and a lack of transparency. A bit of reflection might be useful.

Let me take you back to the Parliament’s Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints—for shorthand, the Salmond committee—and to the war that went on to get information from the Government, the WhatsApp and text messages that were discovered only after several requests and the lack of information on the legal advice that was taken by the Scottish Government, in which its counsel said that the case should be abandoned because the Government was going to lose. Never mind the cost to the taxpayer. It took months of argument and, ultimately, motions of no confidence in the chamber for John Swinney to finally give us sight of some of the documents that were required.

I have to say that the approach to the Covid inquiry bears remarkable similarity to that. The Government tells us how many thousands of pages it has supplied but not about the quality of the information. During the Salmond inquiry, many of the thousands of pages that we were provided with were either blank or so heavily redacted that all we could see were black lines.

Secrecy is the SNP’s modus operandi. Look at Ferguson Marine and the award of that disastrous shipbuilding contract, information on which was withheld from the Parliament’s audit committee. Circularity Scotland was created so that ministers did not need to be answerable for decisions about the bottle return scheme, and so it goes on.

I am reminded that Nicola Sturgeon first committed to a public inquiry in May 2020, and I commend her for that. She knew then, and subsequently confirmed, that she would disclose all Government emails, private emails and WhatsApp messages to the inquiry. Frankly, it is appalling that that has not been complied with and that she appears to have manually deleted messages—a point that she is unwilling to confirm or deny. It would appear that deleting messages has been going on on an industrial scale, and not just by politicians—Jason Leitch, the national clinical director, was at it too. How many messages from Jason Leitch, Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney or Humza Yousaf have been transcribed to the official record, as the Deputy First Minister said they would be?

I am delighted that the First Minister found his old mobile phone and that he is handing it over. Can he tell us—through whoever is responding for the Government—whether the inquiry was told that the phone was initially missing, and whether it is only because he discovered an old mobile that he can now provide messages?

Can ministers hand over emails from their SNP email accounts? I know that they use them as a means of avoiding scrutiny. Have any of those been handed over to the inquiry? If so, from which ministers and special advisers? I welcome the provision of all legal advice being handed over to the UK inquiry. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that that is without qualification? After all, it should be for the inquiry to judge what is relevant, not those who have a vested interest in protecting themselves from the outcome.

It is not just individuals who have withheld information, it is the Government itself. I understand that a key document on the decision to send older people untested into care homes appears to have gone missing. I genuinely think that the SNP Government, particularly its ministers, has decided—and this is how cynical it is—that to be criticised for being secretive and not sharing information is better than to reveal the content of those messages. It is so disappointing that the Scottish Government has told half-truths and that it had to be invited to correct the record by the UK Covid inquiry. That is embarrassing.

Aamer Anwar, who is representing the families, said that the Scottish Government’s

“failure to provide clarity, constant changing timelines and excuses combined with the redundant excuse of ‘confidentiality’ inflames a belief that you are obstructing the search for truth.”

I could not agree with him more.

I will turn to the comments that were made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the chamber. In May and at least twice in June, the First Minister promised to be open and transparent, saying that it would all

“absolutely be handed over to the Covid inquiries and handed over to them in full.”—[

Official Report

, 29 June 2023; c 15.]

In October, “in full” became “any potentially relevant information”. With the greatest respect, it is essential that the inquiry decides—it is not for the Government to decide.

It is clear from the exchanges on 31 October and 2 November that entirely contradictory timelines and information have been provided by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It would appear to anyone who is watching that the ministerial code has been breached. The question for me is whether it was a genuine mistake or a deliberate attempt to cover up? Given what I have seen over the years, secrecy trumps all with the Government. The matter should be referred for investigation in order to consider whether the Parliament has been misled.

This is an important debate. It is about accountability and standards in public office, as Martin Whitfield spoke about, and, importantly, it is about getting truth and justice for Covid-bereaved families, the older people who were discharged to care homes without testing, the families who were unable to visit loved ones in care and the children whose education was compromised and who are still suffering the consequences. All of them deserve answers. This is a matter of trust and accountability.

In closing, I am so disappointed with the Deputy First Minister’s amendment, as it fails to apologise or even acknowledge that the SNP has given incorrect information to the chamber. It is complacent and insulting to those who lost loved ones. I will finish by repeating what Anas Sarwar at the end of his contribution: what does the SNP have to hide?