John Swinney accused of having 'fabricated' hospital deaths inquiry evidence
A row has erupted over John Swinney’s use of evidence into a public inquiry investigated hospital deaths.
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has accused John Swinney of having “fabricated” evidence from a public inquiry into hospital deaths linked to infections.
On Thursday, Mr Sarwar used First Minister’s Questions to reveal evidence submitted to the inquiry that political pressure was felt by health chiefs to open the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) before it was ready.
The SNP government has come under scrutiny over its actions prior to the opening of the QEUH in 2015, including whether it pressured the health board to open the hospital before it was safe and whether it ignored warnings of a high risk of infection and potential loss of life for vulnerable patients.
The Scottish Labour leader highlighted meeting notes from December 2019 and January 2020 which were included in evidence submitted to the inquiry, and which make clear political pressure was felt.
In response, the First Minister said that on Friday, “counsel to the inquiry said in the summary there is no evidence of external pressure on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC) to open the hospital early or before it was ready to be opened”.
He added: “That is what counsel to the inquiry said, and Lord Brodie is considering all these issues.”
Mr Swinney has also claimed no political pressure was put on health chiefs to open the QEUH early.
But now, Mr Sarwar has argued that Mr Swinney has made up that assurance attributed to the inquiry’s counsel, Fred Mackintosh KC.
In a letter to the First Minister, Mr Sarwar claims to highlight “your decision to mislead the Scottish Parliament”.
He added: “You once again chose not to tell the truth to Parliament.
“When I questioned you on the evidence submitted to the Inquiry, which states plainly and unequivocally that ‘political pressure was also being felt’, you told Parliament, twice, that ‘there is no evidence of external pressure on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to open the hospital early or before it was ready to be opened’.
“You then falsely claimed that these words were those of the counsel to the inquiry. They were not. That quote does not exist. It was invented.”
Mr Sarwar said: “In doing so, you did not misinterpret the evidence. You fabricated it. You pre-empted the conclusions of an independent public inquiry and placed misinformation on the official record of Parliament.
“You have misled Parliament and you have lied to the people of Scotland.
“The truth is all that victims, families, staff and whistleblowers have ever asked for. It is what they deserve. That is why I am calling on you to come forward, correct the record, and finally tell the truth.”
In his closing remarks on Friday, Mr Mackintosh said that “as far as I can recollect, beyond one particular aspect of pressure, there was no evidence from the senior GGC people involved in opening the hospital about pressure, either from them or from anyone else.
He said: “The aspect that did exist, of course, was that it’s a massively complicated task merging multiple hospital sites into one.”
Mr Mackintosh added: “There’s pressure in the sense that it would be a good idea to meet the target because otherwise it will be difficult for everybody, there will be failures.
“But we didn’t detect, in the evidence, pressure in the sense of, ‘open it earlier than was planned’.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “We established this Inquiry so families can get answers to their questions and the truth they deserve.
"At no point during First Minister's Questions, did the First Minister say that he was directly quoting the counsel. But counsel’s comments were unequivocal. The published transcript on the inquiry’s website clearly sets out the relevant evidence.
"Ministers have complete confidence in Lord Brodie and the independent inquiry. It is right that Lord Brodie be given the time and space to get to the truth for families without political influence, interference or speculation on the outcome of his conclusions.”
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.