Mark Drakeford criticises Johnson and Hancock in UK Covid inquiry
The First Minister described the former Prime Minister as an "absent football manager"
Last updated 13th Mar 2024
Mark Drakeford has criticised the former prime minister's leadership during the pandemic, at the UK Covid-19 Inquiry on Wednesday.
In a written statement to the inquiry, Mr Drakeford described Michael Gove, who was minister for the Cabinet Office during the early part of the pandemic, as "a centre forward without a team lined up behind him, and where the manager was largely absent".
Addressing the inquiry, Mr Drakeford said: "The absent manager was the prime minister because he was never in these meetings or at the table, and while Mr Gove was a senior minister.
"He has influence rather than the determinative impact which a message from the prime minister would have."
The First Minister also criticised Matt Hancock, the then-UK health secretary following an "extraordinary exchange of messages" with Michael Gove.
Drakeford said there was a "lack of clarity" over the legislative basis for powers that would be needed to deal with the pandemic, which continued through March 2020.
"My belief right up until March 20 is that the essential decisions would remain in the hands of the UK Government and that devolved governments would be implementers of those decisions," he told the hearing.
"Even on March 20 there is further confusion over the next couple of days as to where the ability to exercise public health powers lie.
"And there is an extraordinary exchange of messages between Mr Gove and Mr Hancock on May 30, in which Mr Hancock says: 'I've seen the submission, it's disgraceful that lawyers don't understand where these powers lie because public health is not devolved'."
Mr Drakeford continued: "So here is the secretary of state for health in England getting the most basic thing entirely wrong."
He told the hearing it was "pretty alarming" that the legal basis for which "profoundly consequential decisions were being made" was still being resolved on March 20.
He then dismissed calls for a UK-wide response in the event of a future pandemic.
"I don't think the evidence suggests to me that the decisions made in London would have been better decisions as far as Wales is concerned," he said.
"We are inevitably closer to the ground, more aware of administrative structures, alert to the different patterns of the disease, in the Welsh case, simply better able to communicate in the bilingual way in which Wales operates.
"I definitely don't agree that better decisions would have been made from Whitehall than in Wales."
However, he added that he would have welcomed a "strengthened ability to co-ordinate" between the four nations.