Safe pair of hands still came up short
As someone who occupied the heart of devolved government for nearly 16 years, John Swinney has enjoyed many accolades but if his appearance before the UK Covid inquiry yesterday demonstrated anything, it is that his experience makes him an illsuited candidate to defend the government he served from accusations that it was run by a narrow clique during the pandemic.
He spoke movingly as he recalled the death of his own mother at the outset of the pandemic, and he was sincere and empathetic as he recalled the fear, anxiety and uncertainty wrought by the virus. But on the substantive matter of how the Scottish Government made decisions during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, he struggled to offer a credible case.
He was never evasive in his answers, but neither was he the embodiment of candour.
At times, Mr Swinney seemed to treat the questions as an exercise in semantic tip-toeing. This included when inquiry lawyer, Jamie Dawson KC, pointed out that although Mr Swinney was a member of several Whatsapp group chats identified by the inquiry, he had said in his written statement he was not party to any such groups with ministers and civil servants that “considered ongoing issues in relation to the pandemic”.
Pressed on this apparent contradiction, Mr Swinney insisted he didn’t consider the groups in question to be “passing that test”. Instead, he regarded them as “technical information feeds” containing relevant answers to certain points, adding: “They weren’t ongoing discussions.”
Mr Dawson asked Mr Swinney if it was possible the “defect” may lie with the government’s policy around information retention, rather than his implementation of it. “That might well be the case, Mr Dawson,” Mr Swinney responded.
The significance of those exchanges should not be underestimated. They further undermine the credibility of the government’s information retention policy and invite scrutiny of how senior Cabinet members could cleave to such wildly inconsistent interpretations.
Worse still, the acceptance by Mr Swinney there may be legitimate doubts as to the robustness of that policy begs the question of why it has taken him until now to voice such concerns.
Mr Swinney also floundered when trying to play down the significance of the government’s Gold Command group. He rejected the idea that he, Nicola Sturgeon and a small group of others made decisions about the pandemic. Any decisions taken outside of Cabinet, he stressed, were of “marginal detail”.
Unfortunately, for him at least, the inquiry was shown documents which indicated the opposite.
Referencing those minutes, and the broad delegations of powers outlined in them, Mr Dawson asked a pointed question: “This is in effect a delegation of all decision making power at that stage, isn’t it?”
The answer was not especially persuasive. Despite taking his leave from its ranks, Mr Swinney is one of the government’s staunchest defenders. Yet if the evidence of yesterday is any guide, not even his safe pair of hands could batten down the hatches.