Moving Health Minister Robin Swann wasn’t being contemplated, inquiry told
Civil servant Karen Pearson said she believed the suggestion was a ‘snapshot of how difficult things were at that time’.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The suggestion of a ministerial reshuffle, moving Health Minister Robin Swann, “wasn’t being contemplated”, the Covid-19 Inquiry has heard.
A senior civil servant described it as “very much a snapshot of how difficult things were at that time”, as a recently reformed Stormont Executive dealt with the start of the pandemic in Northern Ireland.
Earlier this week the inquiry heard a ministerial reshuffle was suggested after then deputy first minister Michelle O’Neill, and to a lesser extent then first minister Arlene Foster, expressed frustration with the Department of Health.
A tranche of evidence documents was published by the inquiry on its website on Wednesday.
In an email exchange between civil servants in March 2020, then head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, Sir David Sterling, noted Ms O’Neill’s frustration at “having little power or influence over the health service”.
He wrote that Ms Foster recognised the operational independence of the health minister but was also “frustrated at the lack of information” coming out of the Department of Health and “frequent surprises”, such as an announcement about hospital visits ending.
Sir David also said he felt the first ministers were concerned that they would be held corporately responsible if the handling of the pandemic went wrong.
A senior official in the Department of Finance at the time, Hugh Widdis, suggested a “ministerial reshuffle”, with a view to a health minister from Sinn Fein or the DUP, the two largest parties in Northern Ireland, to which Ms O’Neill and Ms Foster respectively belonged.
“There would be more radical options but I presume that they aren’t palatable eg: asking Robin to take a different portfolio for the duration (they would have to make a tempting offer) and putting a SF or DUP Minister in? Or causing d’Hondt to be run again,” he wrote in the email exchange.
There were also other suggestions such as developing an emergency programme for government, or creating “an all-Exec overarching Covid strategy” which the first and deputy first ministers “can lead and own”.
Mr Swann remained in place as health minister throughout the pandemic, and in January 2024 resumed the role with the re-establishment of devolved government.
I think this is very much a snapshot of how difficult things were at that time
On Thursday, Ulster Unionist Party leader Doug Beattie expressed his concern at the disclosure, and said he intended to write to the current head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, Jayne Brady, about it.
On Friday, Karen Pearson, an official at the Executive Office who was part of the email chain, was asked about the suggestion during her evidence to the inquiry.
Ms Pearson said that as Sir David had noted in his evidence, that period was “difficult”, with the closure of schools.
“He does then go on to say I think, when he was in here, things got better,” she said.
“So I think this is very much a snapshot of how difficult things were at that time.
“Had it reached the point where any of this was being contemplated? No, I don’t think so.
“And with respect to Hugh, who I’ve known for a long, long time, I don’t think he was making any firm suggestions. I think he was setting out, if they wanted to take control, these are some constitutional options.
“I don’t think it’s the job of civil servants, nor do I think Hugh personally, would be making a suggestion about the removal of a minister.”
She added: “I think, and this is a personal view, it’s impossible to stop being a politician when that’s your job and you’re elected.
“So you go into an Executive and you’re bringing your views and your politics with you.
“Here even more so than anywhere else, having to compromise all the time is almost the structure that’s built into the system, but you can occasionally fall back into very different view points, which is what I think caused this email exchange.
“I don’t think we can expect them to entirely leave their party political views at the door, but beyond this point I think we were seeing huge efforts at compromise all the time and on an ongoing basis.”
Inquiry chairwoman Baroness Hallett said: “Can I just challenge that, in time of a national emergency when people are dying, can’t we expect politicians to leave their party politics behind and think of the people that are suffering and dying, or am I being unrealistic?”
Ms Pearson said: “I am not suggesting that what I said about party political views means that they’re not caring about the people.
“The concern about the virus, the impact on people, the health outcomes, and that unfortunately people were going to lose loved ones, that was absolutely top of their priorities.
“What I’m suggesting is, they’re going to come at things from angles, but having that fundamental core objective of making this better was there.
“I have absolutely no doubt about that in my mind.”