Transcript of Module 2B Public Hearing on 07 March 2024.

(10.00 am)

Lady Hallett: Good morning.

Ms Hitchman: My Lady, before we begin hearing evidence today, there is a correction to be put on the record.

In response to a Rule 10 question yesterday, Dr Llewelyn referred to the impact of austerity on local government over the last ten years, and he stated that the budget had been cut in real terms by about £900,000. Dr Llewelyn has clarified that the correct figure is in fact £900 million.

Lady Hallett: A slight difference.

Ms Hitchman: May I please call Jane Runeckles.

1. Ms Jane Runeckles

MS JANE RUNECKLES (affirmed).

Questions From Counsel to the Inquiry

Ms Hitchman: Please could you give your full name.

Ms Jane Runeckles: Jane Sarah Runeckles.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you for attending today and for assisting the Inquiry. You have kindly provided two witness statements for this module. The first is at INQ000320679, and this was signed on 20 October 2023, and it concerns your role as a special adviser during the pandemic.

The second statement is at INQ000274119, which was signed on 15 December 2023, and this concerns your use of informal or private communications.

Do both statements remain true to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Ms Jane Runeckles: They do.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You are the head of the Welsh Government’s team of special advisers, a role to which you were appointed in December 2018. Alongside that role and since the start of the pandemic you have been the senior special adviser to the First Minister, and you remain in that office today.

Is that all correct?

Ms Jane Runeckles: That is.

Counsel Inquiry: In terms of your background and career, you began working for the Welsh civil service in October 2003, when you were appointed as a special adviser by Rhodri Morgan, who was at that time the First Minister, and you provided direct support to the then Minister for the Environment, Planning and Countryside as well as the business minister; is that right?

Ms Jane Runeckles: It is.

Counsel Inquiry: You remained a special adviser until December 2009, when Rhodri Morgan stepped down as First Minister, and you then worked part-time for the Wales Trades Union Congress between January 2010 and August 2015.

Subsequently you returned to the Welsh Government as a special adviser on secondment from the Wales TUC to support the then First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

You then returned to the Welsh Government special adviser team as a direct employee of the Welsh Government civil service in November 2016.

Is that all correct?

Ms Jane Runeckles: It is.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Ms Runeckles.

I want to start by asking you some questions about the role of a special adviser within the Welsh Government.

As the head of the special adviser team, you have responsibility for 14 special advisers. These advisers provide support to the First Minister and to individual Welsh ministers; is that right?

Ms Jane Runeckles: It is.

Counsel Inquiry: Please can you briefly describe the roles and responsibilities of a special adviser in the Welsh Government outside of a crisis period such as the pandemic.

Ms Jane Runeckles: The role of the – of a special adviser is set out in the code, the special adviser code, which I’ve submitted as part of my evidence. It stipulates those areas that we can do, so primarily to convey the views of ministers and their interests to the civil service, to request documents and briefings for them, to hold meetings with civil servants and to engage with the wider civil service and external stakeholders.

We also have things we can’t do, so we cannot take any statutory or prerogative power decisions, we cannot have any part in decision-making around budgets, we cannot have any role in relation to the appointment or management of the civil service staff, and – we are there to listen.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Ms Runeckles.

So it would be fair to summarise, as the name suggests, that the role of a special adviser is to advise but not to make any decisions?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Absolutely.

Counsel Inquiry: Turning now to 2020 onwards and the beginning of the Covid pandemic, please can you briefly outline how your roles and responsibilities as a special adviser changed.

Ms Jane Runeckles: I don’t know that they did change enormously. The fundamentals that I’ve just described remained true throughout the pandemic period.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You explain in your first witness statement that the structure of your team changed during the pandemic, and the team was rejigged to respond to the handling of the pandemic response in late March, and three new members of the team were introduced.

Please could you explain why you restructured your team in this way?

Ms Jane Runeckles: It was clear through March that the workload that the team were having to cope with was increasing steadily, and the First Minister, as a former special adviser himself, suggested that it would be useful to bring in additional support for the team, and the three people who we brought into the team at that point were all experienced special advisers and had served under previous First Ministers.

I also asked two members of the team to take a kind of more supervisory role in a way that isn’t ordinarily the case in the special adviser team, so there was one of my team who looked after the sort of public services elements and another member of my team who covered the economy and finance side and helped provide a focus for the other members of the special adviser team to be able to have somebody to contact.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You explain at paragraph 12 of your first witness statement that:

“It is unusual in the Whitehall context for special advisers to stay in post for as long as [you] have been …”

And as we noted earlier, you’ve worked for three First Ministers and have been a special adviser for nearly 20 years. You also say that:

“In the Welsh Government context, many of the team of special advisers have years of experience of working with the civil service and in Welsh public life.”

In your view, to what extent did that longevity of service of special advisers affect the Welsh Government’s decision-making?

Ms Jane Runeckles: It was not something I was particularly conscious of at the time, but having reflected on the experiences since, the relation – the fact that we had spent as long as we had understanding the ways in which government works, knowing the individuals with whom we relied heavily upon, certainly in the early months, and having relationships of trust with them, was extraordinarily beneficial.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Would it be fair to say that you had a very close working relationship with the First Minister?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Would it also be fair to say that there were very few people who were quite as close to the centre of Welsh Government decision-making during the pandemic as you were?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: What was your relationship with your counterparts in the UK Government and other devolved governments?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Until the pandemic, limited. I had very little contact with other special advisers. I had met the – my counterpart in the Scottish Government before Christmas in 2020 – in 2019, when the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales had done a joint press conference in relation to some Brexit-related activity. I had no real contact with the special advisers in the UK Government until the pandemic began.

Counsel Inquiry: And when the pandemic did begin, how would you describe those relationships?

Ms Jane Runeckles: The relationships with the UK Government special advisers were intermittent but quite – that’s not the right word – were frequent in the beginning, in the early months, both with the special adviser in the Wales Office and a special adviser in Number 10.

My relationships with them deteriorated over the first months of the pandemic and I would guess that by the summer of 2020 we weren’t really having any regular contact at all. My relationship with the special adviser to the First Minister of Scotland developed and continue – has continued.

Counsel Inquiry: When you say that your relationship with the UK Government special advisers deteriorated, what do you attribute as the cause of that deterioration?

Ms Jane Runeckles: The tensions between the actions taken by the Welsh Government and the actions taken by the UK Government sort of became more and more obvious, and once we reached the point through the beginning of May, certainly, and I suspect this is a period we’ll return to, and into the summer, the fact that the Welsh Government were taking decisions in a different way to the United Kingdom Government just meant that there was very little for us to talk about.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. And you’re correct to say that we’ll return to that period and the divergence between the governments later today.

I want to turn now to your attendance at meetings during the pandemic.

If we could please have on screen INQ000227534. This is a document that you have provided which sets out the various meetings you attended as an observer, and it’s fair to say, is it not, that save for a period between the end of November 2020 and some time in February or March 2021, when you were largely absent for personal reasons, you attended almost every cabinet meeting, ministerial call and meetings with the UK Government and the other devolved governments that the First Minister attended?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I did.

Counsel Inquiry: And you also attended numerous internal Welsh Government meetings, again as an observer; is that right?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I did.

Counsel Inquiry: You say in your first witness statement that you did not provide any written briefings for these meetings. Is it right, then, that the advice you provided was mainly verbal throughout the entire period of the pandemic?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I will have contributed to papers that went to the meetings in internal Welsh Government civil service meetings. I would have had conversations with officials in the run-up to those papers being produced. But in terms of written advice for those meetings, that was not my role.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I want to turn now to look at the Welsh Government’s initial understanding of and response to Covid-19, and looking first at January and February 2020.

In his witness statement to this module, the First Minister says that by 24 January 2020, he had been advised by Sir Frank Atherton that there was a significant risk that the virus would arrive in Wales.

Do you recall whether the First Minister shared that information with you at the time?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I do not, no.

Counsel Inquiry: The Inquiry understands that Mr Drakeford attended his first COBR meeting on 18 February 2020, and the Welsh Government was represented at earlier COBR meetings by the Minister for Health and Social Services. Why did the First Minister not attend the first three COBR meetings, notwithstanding those comments from his Chief Medical Officer?

Ms Jane Runeckles: The first couple of COBR meetings, the invitations for the COBR meetings will have come through to the First Minister’s office, the First Minister would determine under other circumstances which minister was the most appropriate person to attend, and in the very early days this was a matter that was being dealt with by the Health and Social Services team and the health minister was the most appropriate person to attend.

Counsel Inquiry: Would you provide any advice to the First Minister on his attendance at meetings such as COBR?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I would certainly have had conversations with him about that, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Do you recall if you had conversations about those first three COBR meetings?

Ms Jane Runeckles: No.

Counsel Inquiry: Covid-19 was not discussed by the Welsh Cabinet until 25 February. Again, in light of the advice from the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, did that surprise you?

Ms Jane Runeckles: No. There had been a number of written statements by the minister for health by this time, and the minister for health was keeping the First Minister updated informally, as was Dr Frank Atherton.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

The First Minister said in his written evidence to Module 2 that looking back on matters, and given what we know now, there is strong evidence to suggest that more stringent action could and should have been taken sooner.

And that, for the record, is at paragraph 17 of INQ000273747.

Do you agree with Mr Drakeford’s assessment?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Moving now to March 2020, I’d like to look at the cabinet minutes from a meeting on 4 March 2020.

This is at INQ000048789.

You are listed as an attendee there.

There is a note at the top of these minutes that states:

“Cabinet will wish to note that these minutes, except those items in italics, will be published in week commencing 13th April 2020.”

This is an instruction that appears on many cabinet minutes, obviously with a different date of publication. Why is it that italicised items are not to be published?

Ms Jane Runeckles: It’s something you may need to ask the cabinet secretary, but I understand that there are items – this happens in relation to matters such as those when they’re discussing finance, and those where they’re discussing matters that it would be inappropriate to be put into the public domain at such an early point in the publication.

The Welsh Government has published minutes of cabinet meetings for a very long time, it was one of the decisions taken by the first First Minister I worked for.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. If we could turn to page 3 of this document, and paragraph 2.6, the first sentence says:

“Modelling by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies suggested that under the reasonable worst case scenario, 80% of the population would be infected.”

Then the final sentence says:

“The same modelling suggested somewhere in the region of 25,000 deaths.”

Then looking at paragraph 2.7, this says:

“In terms of timescale, an increase in cases was expected over the coming weeks, with significant escalation in April and possibly intensification into May and June before the number of new infections started to drop.”

Just returning to what you said about italicised items being inappropriate to put in the public domain, in your view why were these two items not published in the minutes that were published on 13 April 2020?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I’m afraid I … I’m not sure that I’m the best person to answer this question. I was certainly aware of the figures set out in 2.6, and I distinctly remember the discussions around the reasonable worst-case scenario at this point and the significance of them.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Are you able to comment on whether this was the first time that the cabinet was informed about the SAGE planning assumptions?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I … I don’t know.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You explain at paragraph 28 of your first witness statement that in around March 2020 there were an increasing number of meetings with the cabinet, the Minister for Health and Social Services, the chief executive of the NHS, the CMO and others to discuss measures being taken specifically in the NHS in Wales but also preparedness in other sectors. What was the level of your involvement in those meetings?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Sorry, what was the date you gave?

Counsel Inquiry: From March 2020.

Ms Jane Runeckles: Oh, okay. My involvement would have been to have sat and to have listened and to have picked up any action points that were appropriate for me to do.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You attended a Covid-19 core group meeting on 11 March 2020.

The minutes of that meeting are at INQ000215171.

Again, at the top it states that those minutes are “Not for publication”. Are you able to comment on why that’s the case?

Ms Jane Runeckles: No.

Counsel Inquiry: There is a discussion here about various topics, including whether to cancel routine hospital and GP appointments, and the policy on mass gatherings, and there are a number of questions raised. At paragraph 12 the minutes note that:

“Ministers agreed that there was a need to address the questions that had been raised as soon as possible.”

Why were these questions not addressed in the meeting itself?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I … I suspect that the minute refers to the fact that there was action that would need to be taken following the meeting rather than in the meeting itself.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I want to turn now to INQ000303227.

This is a WhatsApp group entitled “AG Quintet”, which includes Shan Morgan, Andrew Goodall, Andrew Slade and Tracey Burke.

If we turn to page 4, at the bottom of the page, Dame Shan says as follows on 17 March 2020:

“Thanks all for an excellent CovExCo. Saw Jane R afterwards. She’s concerned about new COBR Ministerial structures and lack of DAs.”

In her oral evidence to the Inquiry earlier this week, Dame Shan stated that she thought that you and the First Minister were concerned about the predictability of communications and engagement structures with the UK Government. Is that an accurate summary of your concerns?

Ms Jane Runeckles: It is.

Counsel Inquiry: Why did you think that?

Ms Jane Runeckles: By – by this point, we – there was no real notice of when the COBR meetings were going to happen, what the agendas for those meetings would be, until very close, sometimes 10, 15 minutes before the meetings began, and the First Minister was becoming concerned about the levels of engagement that he felt were necessary due to the urgency of the situation we were in.

Counsel Inquiry: That is a point to which we will return later in your evidence.

I want to turn to look in further detail at the degree of co-ordination between the Welsh Government and the UK Government. You explain in your statement at paragraph 38 that the potential for divergence between the four parts of the United Kingdom was referred to by the First Minister at COBR on 9 March 2020, and this possible divergence was already evident by the Scottish Government’s indication at COBR that on 12 March 2020 that it intended to ban gatherings of more than 500 people.

What was your advice to the First Minister in March 2020 as to the adoption of a four nations approach to a lockdown?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I was absolutely clear, as he was, that the four nations approach was the preferable way for us to be responding to the emerging situation.

Counsel Inquiry: And why was that?

Ms Jane Runeckles: An obvious point, the United Kingdom’s an island and –

Lady Hallett: Well, three parts of it are.

Ms Jane Runeckles: That’s an absolutely fair point. I apologise to Northern Ireland for my slip-up.

The – and also I think that the most important point was that we didn’t at that point, in any way, shape or form, anticipate that we would be in a situation where we would end up taking the kind of decisions that we did under the 1984 Act.

Ms Hitchman: At paragraph 54 of your first witness statement, you say that:

“It was becoming clear towards the end of April [2020] that divergence from the UK Government decision-making might be necessary.”

And you say that:

“A number of things had happened that had put pressure on the relationship, including the opening of a test centre in Cardiff City football stadium by the UK Government without any consultation with the Welsh Government …”

And you say that that created “significant difficulties with data”.

I want to just look at that specific example of the test centre in Cardiff City football stadium.

If we could have onscreen INQ000216485, and this is an email chain between Dr John Boulton of Public Health Wales and other public health officials.

Given you’re not included as a recipient in this chain, I won’t go into it in too much detail, but I just want to ask you about a couple of points.

Dr Boulton sets out the background to the set-up of the testing facility, and under the heading “Situation” he says that he was contacted on 30 March to arrange a call to discuss the UK-wide key worker testing strategy, and that contact was from Deloitte Consulting.

Then he goes on to say that a call took place on 1 April 2020, at 3 pm, in which he was told that they had set up a testing facility in Cardiff City Stadium and were ready to accept key workers for testing the following day.

Then Mr Boulton says:

“I asked them to stand down the facility until further discussion and clarity had been sought.”

He goes on to say, under “Background” that:

“It doesn’t appear that any communication to [Public Health Wales] or Welsh Government had taken place prior to this call, nobody in Wales knew they were coming it appears.”

What was the reaction of this decision by the First Minister and other ministers for whom you advised?

Ms Jane Runeckles: They were very shocked, and dismayed, really, that we were in a situation where a private company had opened a testing centre, that the way in which the NHS in Wales collects data hadn’t been taken into account, and the fact that any of the responses or the positive tests that came through that test centre, as far as we could see, wouldn’t be fed through into NHS records and into the data collection that we were responsible for.

Counsel Inquiry: Did you ever receive any information as to why there had been no communications with Public Health Wales or the Welsh Government?

Ms Jane Runeckles: No.

Counsel Inquiry: You set out in considerable detail in your first statement the ways in which the UK Government began to diverge from the devolved governments, including, for example, the UK Government changing their messaging from Stay at Home to Stay Alert on 10 May 2020.

On this point, can we have on screen, INQ000222864.

This is a note that you prepared for the First Minister on 4 May 2020; is that right?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Before we go into the contents of the note, how often would you produce documents like this for the First Minister?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Very rarely. I have two examples during the period the Inquiry’s covering.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

If we could turn to page 2, you set out there what you think that the First Minister’s schedule might look like for the week ahead and you say:

“… (avoiding as much as I can the dreaded ‘supposition’ I was so rude about earlier).”

Could you explain what you mean by that?

Ms Jane Runeckles: There are a number of things in here that are bracketed later on in relation to Wednesday and Thursday where we are making suppositions about what might happen in relation to engagement with the Welsh Government. We, at the point I wrote the note, which was Monday, I think, the 4th, were unclear as to what that engagement would look like for the rest of the week.

Counsel Inquiry: So we can take it that mean that the Welsh Government were not being told when COBR meetings might happen; is that right?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: And we’ll come back to look at COBR meetings in a moment.

You then state, later in your document, that:

“UK Gvt announcement on continuation of current restrictions (again supposition) with further announcement to follow on Sunday.”

Then further down the page, you say:

“Question from the comms side is going to be – do we go hell for leather on our plans on Thursday/Friday (ahead of UK Gvt) or do we do something Sunday (again ahead of UK Gvt) or do we go for Monday (after UK Gvt).”

Can you explain why these were the options that you were proposing to the First Minister?

Ms Jane Runeckles: So I don’t know that these are necessarily the options that I personally was proposing. I think it’s clear that it was a conversation that was being had beyond me. But the important point really is the 21-day review period was due to finish on the Thursday, which would have been the date that – the decisions – cabinet would have been taking the decisions, so the decision was around – in this case is around whether or not the First Minister does the announcement as close to the decision-making point as possible, or whether he holds back the announcement of that decision so that the UK Government has gone and made the announcements they were going to make first.

Counsel Inquiry: This is, as you say in the note, a question from the comms side. The Inquiry will be hearing from Toby Mason later today, but please could you give your view on the extent to which the Welsh Government’s communication and public health messaging from this point onwards diverged from that of the UK Government?

Ms Jane Runeckles: This is a very key period in this context from my point of view. A number of things – I think I refer in the first couple of paragraphs of the note that the fact that we had only really become aware in the days before this period that SAGE was considering a series of questions from the Cabinet Office, from the UK Government, in relation to how to move out of restrictions and asked SAGE to do a series of modelling around some exact scenarios, and these scenarios were very England-focused, and it was difficult for us to make assessment, similar assessments at that point on the basis of the information that was – they were being asked to provide because of the England focus.

Sorry, I’m not sure I’ve answered your question.

Counsel Inquiry: No, that’s a point that we will return to, about the involvement of SAGE in advising the Welsh Government.

Ms Jane Runeckles: It was about divergence, wasn’t it? The reason this – it just is a very significant point at which it was becoming more and more apparent that the differences between the way in which – the approach that we and the UK Government were going to take was going to be necessary.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Just returning to your note, further down the page, you then say:

“Whatever we do, I think we can be more confident now that we aren’t heading into a big collision course with them (certainly in the short term) and that is obviously a good thing for a number of reasons. We will need to retain the ‘Welsh solutions to Welsh circumstances’ approach, particularly in relation to schools where it feels very little we will end up in a different place.”

Please could you just explain what you mean by this.

Ms Jane Runeckles: We were – the First Minister was absolutely not looking for disagreements to be played out in a public arena as far as they possibly – when they – when they didn’t need to be, and we were trying to avoid being in a situation where that was the case.

In terms of the schools point, the information that SAGE and – I’m sorry if I’m jumping ahead – but the information that SAGE had been asked to look at in relation to England very heavily focused around the re-opening of schools, and we were in a different place, both with local – our relationship with local government and in the relationship with the teaching unions and based on the scientific and the health advice that the First Minister and the ministers were receiving about the sort of more gradual re-opening, and the focus on schools was one aspect of that.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Lady Hallett: Just to follow that, so you at this stage got the impression that the UK Government were keener on re-opening schools –

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Lady Hallett: – and the Welsh Government was more cautious about re-opening schools?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Certainly that was what the evidence was suggesting to us that we should do.

Lady Hallett: When you say the evidence, that evidence was medical, biomedical evidence, or did it include the various other harms that are caused by closing schools?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I’m not … so both were a consideration. I haven’t reviewed the paperwork around this in any detail. From memory the balancing of the considerations that was going on at that point wasn’t suggesting that there should be a – the impact of what would happen, were schools to re-open at that point, wasn’t still fully understood, and so the advice that was being given to the First Minister and others was that we shouldn’t be looking at that yet.

Lady Hallett: So my question is: was the First Minister getting advice on the potential for harm for young people, children, being denied access to schools, to social development, to education, to learning, all the rest of it?

Ms Jane Runeckles: My recollection was absolutely, yes.

Lady Hallett: He was?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Ms Hitchman: I’d just like to pick up on that point. You say later in your witness statement, at paragraph 47(f), that, regarding the closure of schools and education settings, you facilitated discussions between officials, local authority leaders and support staff and trade union representatives to ensure that they had an opportunity to discuss emerging evidence with scientific advisers and to ensure that ministers had feedback to inform future decisions.

You don’t mention here that you facilitated any discussions with children or parents. Do you recall whether their views were sought?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I know that many – that certainly the minister for education and First Minister and a number of ministers engaged in activities with children and young people, they had sessions of the youth parliament, specifically to hear views of young people, and a number of other fora, I couldn’t recollect the exact details of.

This – my specific involvement in relation to the support staff trade unions was around a period where there were a number of concerns from the support staff trade unions particularly, and the support staff unions had felt and had been in contact with us that their views weren’t being taken into account. So it was specifically the support staff trade unions rather than the kind of more conventional teaching trade unions I refer to.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

If we could turn now to INQ000222865.

This is a briefing note that you wrote to the First Minister on 9 June 2020; is that right?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: You say about halfway down the first page:

“If we therefore have some ‘money in the bank’ to introduce further relaxations, how are we making these judgements? I know that there were a number of impact assessments being done but fundamentally the balance of these things will come down (as it has at every other point in this process) to very fine judgements.”

Please could you explain how you were providing advice on those very fine judgements.

Ms Jane Runeckles: I’m not sure that I was specifically providing advice on those very fine judgements, I think that this note just sets out what some of those things are, and I think it’s important for me to say that this note was a very short part of an extraordinarily large number of other documents that the First Minister would have considered at this time.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Then a little further down the page, you say:

“There are also some significant dates that we have been talking about, including the question as to whether we change from 21 days to 28. Personally, I really don’t think it matters. We are not going to be able to easily align with the [UK Government] and to that end all we [are] really buying are a couple of days for officials to try and pretend we will be better prepared.”

What do you mean at the end where you say “try and be better prepared”?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Everything at this point – this is another significant and very difficult moment in what – the decisions that the First Minister and the Welsh ministers were trying to take. Coming out of the lockdown in some ways was an extraordinarily difficult set of circumstances. There wasn’t a blueprint for how this was done and there were an extraordinarily difficult number of issues and balances that needed to be considered.

If you ask me whether or not we were prepared, I would have to say no, I don’t … this hadn’t been done before.

Lady Hallett: What is the reference “21 days to 28”?

Ms Jane Runeckles: The UK Government moved from considering the regulations every 21 days to 28 days, and there was advice from the civil service to the First Minister that we should consider doing the same. He was very clear that he wanted to maintain the 21-day rhythm. It was something that the public were beginning to understand and recognise, and the structure that it provided him, in terms of not only making the public announcement and the public understanding and being very clear about that, but also the series of meetings that happened in between, the cycle of meetings with officials, with external stakeholders, with the Social Partnership Council and others, was beginning to become understood and became a key feature of the way in which he communicated that with the public.

Ms Hitchman: And finally on the topic of divergence, you conclude in your first witness statement by saying that:

“Overall, divergence between the decisions taken by Welsh ministers and the UK Government (and other parts of the United Kingdom) was necessary for Welsh ministers to properly discharge their functions.”

And then you say:

“Welsh Ministers have a responsibility to discharge those functions on the basis of the advice that they receive.”

Can we take it from that final sentence that you were advising Welsh ministers to diverge from the UK approach?

Ms Jane Runeckles: No. I think what I was trying to say in that sentence was that, once the decision to use the 1984 Act had been taken, that the Welsh ministers have statutory responsibilities in terms of the exercising of those functions and that those functions needed to be undertaken based on the advice that they were provided by the civil service.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I want to turn now to look at a point that we’ve briefly touched upon, which is the Welsh Government’s involvement in COBR meetings.

At paragraph 40 of your first witness statement you say that:

“The control of the COBR meetings and the production of papers for it rest exclusively in the hands of the UK Government. The First Minister did not see COBR papers until very close to the time of the meetings and it was often unclear what the agenda would be until just before the start of those meetings.”

How did this late circulation of COBR papers that you describe affect your ability to advise the First Minister?

Ms Jane Runeckles: So it would – it is not and would not have been the case that I would have been providing advice ahead of COBR meetings or to the First Minister in relation to COBR meetings, except possibly in relation to any of the kind of wider political considerations.

Counsel Inquiry: Do you have any views as to why those papers were provided at such short notice?

Ms Jane Runeckles: No.

Counsel Inquiry: If we could, please, turn to INQ000222503.

This is an email chain dated 22 March 2020, and the first paragraph includes an action point for you which states:

“Emphasise to No 10 that we must have a predictable schedule for COBRA and its sub-groups …”

Could you briefly explain, please, how this action point came about?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I believe that I called the special adviser at Number 10, with whom I was already having conversations relatively regularly at this point.

Counsel Inquiry: The Inquiry understands that in early April the First Minister was pressing the UK Government to convene a COBR meeting in good time before 16 April, which was the date by which the first 21-day review needed to be carried out, so that the four nations could discuss a further set of co-ordinated announcements; is that correct?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: So would it be fair to say that your attempts to secure a predictable schedule for those COBR meetings fell on deaf ears?

Ms Jane Runeckles: They certainly weren’t successful.

Counsel Inquiry: Turning back to your first witness statement, you say that:

“The tensions that had emerged between the Welsh Government and the UK Government … were very much evident in the run up to this period [the Welsh firebreak] and I noted at a discussion … on 31 October where I asked if there would be a COBR meeting and noted ‘how many times do we have to ask?’”

Is it fair to say, then, that by October 2020 the Welsh Government was still not receiving adequate notice of COBR meetings?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: During the pandemic, you made notes in a series of notebooks; is that right?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Were the notes that you made a contemporaneous note or were they made after the event?

Ms Jane Runeckles: They were contemporaneous.

Counsel Inquiry: Could we turn to one of those entries, at INQ000327611.

At page 2, this is dated at the top 31 July 2020, and looking down the page, there’s an entry timed 9.20 am, and you say:

“Phone call with Jack Stenner – Sadiq K.”

Is it correct that Mr Stenner was special adviser to Sadiq Khan?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: You record as follows:

“no straight data showing problems but sense that things could change [very, very] quickly.”

What was that in reference to?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Was the date of this 31 July?

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Jane Runeckles: I assume it will have been case levels, numbers of positive tests.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Then just further down you say:

“no longer any contact with [UK Government] – cut out completely.”

Again, what was that in reference to?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I believe that was Jack telling me that Sadiq’s office had – no longer had any contact with the UK Government, that they had been cut out completely.

Counsel Inquiry: How would you describe the contact between the Welsh Government and the UK Government at this time?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Sporadic. From a political point of view. I can’t speak for how – what the contact with the civil – between the civil servants was.

Counsel Inquiry: You say at paragraph 62 of your witness statement that discussions with the UK Government moved towards conversations about issues such as how the Joint Biosecurity Centre was going to work and how genuinely joint it was.

Could you just explain what you mean by that?

Ms Jane Runeckles: When we first learnt of the creation of the Joint Biosecurity Centre, I recall the First Minister having been given information about what its purpose was and that there were – there was genuine welcome for its creation. There were some concerns expressed about how joint, in relation to the involvement of the devolved governments, it would be. Largely these evaporated.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

The Inquiry understands that on 3 June 2021 there was a meeting between the First Minister and the Prime Minister, you describe this in your first witness statement as a “Summit”, at which the Prime Minister committed to resetting the intergovernmental arrangements. You note in your witness statement that the First Minister told the Prime Minister that he believed that the fissures in the UK Government were growing rather than contracting. Was that something that you discussed with the First Minister?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: At this point, how would you describe the relationship between the First Minister and the then Prime Minister, Mr Johnson?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Well, their contact was infrequent, and I believe the First Minister had a genuine, sincerely held concern that some of the actions of the United Kingdom Government, in relation to the way they had handled some of the earlier period, was a genuine threat to the future of the United Kingdom.

Counsel Inquiry: As we have touched upon, the First Minister was an advocate for a reliable and regular pattern of contact between all four nations during the pandemic, and we know that there were no Joint Ministerial Committee plenary meetings at all during the pandemic; is that right?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: We also know that the principal point of contact was Michael Gove, initially in his capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and later as Secretary of State for Levelling Up and the Constitution, and regular calls between Mr Gove and the First Ministers of the devolved administrations started in June 2020; is that right?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: In your view, were these calls with Mr Gove a suitable substitute for a more codified set of arrangements?

Ms Jane Runeckles: No.

Counsel Inquiry: Why not?

Ms Jane Runeckles: They were an informal opportunity for the first ministers and the deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland to explore issues, but they were not areas in which – they were not meetings where sort of significant decisions at a four nations basis were taken place.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Did anything change as regards intergovernmental relations after that June 2021 summit?

Ms Jane Runeckles: No.

Lady Hallett: You say that they weren’t meetings where significant decisions on a four nations basis could take place, but from what I’ve heard, given the different approaches in Scotland, as you said, Wales and, I may hear, in Northern Ireland, is it likely that had those meetings been held there would have been any decisions taken on a four nations basis, because people weren’t agreeing?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I do think there’s a period in the run-up to the firebreak and post that period, in the run-up to Christmas, where there was a significant effort to try to re-align the decisions that had been taken previously, and I certainly believe in the case of the First Minister for whom I work that he would have at earlier stages liked that to be the case.

Lady Hallett: I think my question really is: that may well be in a perfect world, but, given we’re not in a perfect world, had those meetings taken place, the Prime Minister and first ministers and deputy First Minister, would it have made any difference, because they weren’t going to agree, were they?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Is there an alternative universe where this was possible? I think there probably is.

Lady Hallett: Beyond my terms of reference, I think.

Ms Hitchman: I want to turn now to a point that you’ve already touched upon, which is your role in relation to medical and scientific expertise, and whilst of course you did not personally provide medical and scientific advice, a key part of your role, as you say in your witness statement, was to listen and, when points required escalation to ministers, to consider both the speed of that escalation and whether escalation was needed outside of the formal meeting structures that were in place.

Is that a fair summary?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Presumably we’re talking there about advice from the Welsh Government or Welsh bodies such as Public Health Wales; is that right?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes, my contact with Public Health Wales was limited. I don’t recall whether by this point I – the HPAG subgroup had been created, which was one of the ways in which I did have more regular contact with officials from Public Health Wales. I guess in the context I was referring to Dr Frank Atherton and the chief scientific advisers for health.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

There was a point in May 2020 when the First Minister wrote to Sir Patrick Vallance, as chair of SAGE, outlining the desire of the Welsh Government to engage more actively in the work that SAGE was undertaking.

If we could just pull up that letter, which is INQ000299310, it’s dated 26 May. In your view, and this is a point that you’ve already touched upon, but in relation to this letter specifically, why was it necessary for the First Minister to write to Sir Patrick in this way?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I did refer to this briefly earlier. It was very noticeable to us towards the end of April and into the beginning of May that some of the work that was being undertaken by SAGE – I’m sure there was other work beyond this, but some of the work that was being undertaken by SAGE on modelling in relation to easements from the lockdown was being undertaken based on a set of questions that were being asked to them by the UK Government Cabinet Office, which reflected very specific England-focused questions, something that I think Nicola Sturgeon raises in a meeting with the UK Government, I think it’s around this time, where she discussed the different term dates in Scotland being a particular consideration. But it was those kinds of issues that we were concerned about.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I want to take you now to a WhatsApp chain, which is at INQ000303220.

This is from a group titled “DrakeSpAds” and includes various people, including yourself.

Is it fair to assume that the group was what it says on the tin, it was the First Minister’s special advisers?

Ms Jane Runeckles: It is.

Counsel Inquiry: If we turn to page 11, and about halfway down the page, Tom Woodward says as follows:

“Is it just me, or do we as a government need more scientists? Are we looking to recruit more? In England even the departments have their own scientists, while it feels like we all have to bother the same 3 people for everything and I feel rather guilty about it! Obviously not that sustainable if this continues for years.”

Pausing there, are they Dr Atherton, as Chief Medical Officer, Dr Orford as Chief Scientific Adviser, and Fliss Bennee, co-chair of TAG and deputy director for digital data and technology?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I would assume so, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: The next message in the chat is an hour and a half later and relates to a separate meeting. Why was Mr Woodward’s point here about the need for more scientists not addressed?

Ms Jane Runeckles: As I’m sure we’ll come on to, this was a very informal conversation and I’m not sure that Tom was looking for an answer, or that I was qualified to give him one.

Counsel Inquiry: And what is your view of Mr Woodward’s point that more scientists in the government were needed?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I suspect that the point that Tom was making – where are we? 22 June – related to the fact that we had at this point an enormous number of meetings taking place, both internally and with external stakeholders, and we relied very heavily on the three of those – those three people to attend those meetings, and to explain the evidence that they were hearing.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I want to turn now to look at the methods of communication that you used to conduct government business during the pandemic.

You say in your second witness statement that from 1 January 2020 to 31 May 2022 you used your personal mobile phone to send WhatsApp messages; is that right?

Ms Jane Runeckles: It is.

Counsel Inquiry: You explain that there were three groups that were routinely used: a ministers’ WhatsApp group – is that the DrakeSpAds that we have just looked at?

Ms Jane Runeckles: No.

Counsel Inquiry: Separate – forgive me – a special adviser WhatsApp group, which is the DrakeSpAds WhatsApp group; and a WhatsApp group with a small team of Welsh Government lawyers?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Is that final group the Coronavirus legal hotline group?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: There are a number of Welsh Government policies and documents that were in place dealing with the use of informal communications, including text messages and WhatsApp, and the Inquiry heard evidence from Dame Shan Morgan about many of those policies. I won’t go into detail about them, but I just want to take you to two and ask you about two aspects of your use of your personal mobile phone and WhatsApp.

If I could take you first to a document from January 2020, which is a SIRO notice, senior information risk owner, and this is at INQ000396686, and on page 3, under the heading “WhatsApp”, it state:

“In the same way that personal email accounts cannot be use to undertaking Welsh Government business, personal WhatsApp accounts may not be used for Welsh Government business.”

Were you aware that conducting Welsh Government business through a personal WhatsApp account was prohibited?

Ms Jane Runeckles: So I think there’s two things to say, the first one is I have asked the civil service to confirm that I received this notice, because I did not recognise it when it was provided to me by the Inquiry, and I have had confirmation that I was not on the distribution list to be sent this email.

However, I do recognise that I was – well, I knew that I was not in a position to use my personal phone for Welsh Government formal decision-making, and I do not believe that that was the case. The groups that I’ve discussed were used for admin purposes and for team morale. This was a point at which my team was no longer in the office and it was something that we did use to keep in contact and to keep the team together.

Counsel Inquiry: We will return in a moment to –

Lady Hallett: Before you move on, if I may, Ms Hitchman.

But isn’t using your personal phone for admin purposes using it for Welsh Government business?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Lady Hallett: So you were using it wrongly?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Ms Hitchman: Thank you, my Lady.

We’ll return in a moment, Ms Runeckles, to a couple of examples in those WhatsApp groups. But I just want to look first at another document, which relates to the preservation of conversations for record-keeping purposes.

That’s at INQ000396685.

This is the Welsh Government Information Management and Governance Policy published in August 2018.

On page 17, at paragraph 6.6, it states at the top there:

“Text or ‘instant messages’ are electronic mail and messaging systems used for the purposes of communication between individuals. Staff should be aware that when using their [Welsh Government] phones in this way they are in fact creating ‘public records’. Staff using private phones for [Welsh Government] business may also be creating public records. The ephemeral nature of text messages (and instant messaging) heightens the need for users to be aware that they may be creating records using this application, and to properly manage and preserve record content.”

Were you aware of this policy?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes. I don’t know that I was sent this document in the same way, but it would be wrong of me to assume that I wasn’t aware of the general points.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I want to turn now to a few examples of your use of WhatsApp during the pandemic.

If we could turn to the ministerial WhatsApp group.

That’s at INQ000303219.

And is it right that this group includes you and ministers including Kirsty Williams, Rebecca Evans, Julie James and others?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: If we can turn to the final page, page 73, on 25 November 2021, you turned on disappearing messages, and the consequence of that was that messages in the chat would disappear seven days after they were sent, except where they were kept.

In her evidence to this module, Dame Shan Morgan expressed her surprise that you turned on disappearing messages, notwithstanding the guidance that we have just discussed.

In light of that guidance, and your acceptance that you were aware of the requirement to preserve records, why did you turn on disappearing messages?

Ms Jane Runeckles: My Lady, I think this is something I’ve reflected on a lot, and I think it would be very useful for people who hold the kind of role that I hold in the future for there to be some clear recommendations about this.

I do not believe that there is any evidence of decision-making in any of these groups, and I think that in areas where we were using this tool, and possibly I should have been using Teams and creating a chat function on Teams, which was the method that the Welsh Government does recommend – I wasn’t sure I knew how in March 2020, but – and the Welsh Government record-keeping in that regard requires that those messages are deleted after 30 days.

The 2009 document that I also have part of my evidence pack makes it clear in relation to telephone conversations that ministers have records of telephone conversations between ministers and don’t need to have formal records kept when they’re looking at policy development or in relation to responding to events that happen quickly, and I think that there is a distinction in my mind between the formal records and the decision-making processes that ministers undertook and this kind of communication. But I’m aware that there is a lot of interest in this topic.

Lady Hallett: Well, in the hearings for 2A in Scotland, I think it was agreed by some of the witnesses that it’s not just decision-making that should be recorded, and that’s really what the document to which Ms Hitchman just took you indicates, that it goes beyond decision-making. And the importance of keeping records, as I’m sure you appreciate, is not just for the purposes of an inquiry of this kind, but for public accountability.

Ms Jane Runeckles: I – I’m – obviously understand the need to take this in terms of future activity.

Ms Hitchman: You just mentioned in your response the 2009 document. I think you are referring to the guidance on private office records.

That’s at INQ000396684, if we could just pull that up briefly.

At paragraph 5, at the bottom of the page, it says that:

“The records of Special Advisers require separate consideration … Where Special Advisers have a wider role in the department and have an impact on official business the records originated by a Special Adviser should be retained by the department.”

Save where, it goes on to say, their records only mirror those existing elsewhere.

So would you accept that even in your role as a special adviser, you had an obligation to record conversations via WhatsApp?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I would have interpreted the important part of this as being “where they had an impact on official business”.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I want to take you to one more WhatsApp conversation which is the coronavirus legal hotline.

That’s at INQ000331038.

And this WhatsApp group includes you, other special advisers and –

Ms Jane Runeckles: There’s no other special advisers on this group, I heard that said yesterday, it’s only me.

Counsel Inquiry: Forgive me. So this includes you and Welsh Government lawyers?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: If we could turn to page 90, and at page 90 – forgive me.

(Pause)

Counsel Inquiry: There’s an extract here where Helen Lentle says – this is 17 September 2020:

“Have RobO …”

Presumably that’s a reference to Rob Orford.

“… revealed his big news yet??”

You say – you respond with a question mark.

Dylan Hughes says:

“The ‘important information’ from Sage.”

Helen Lentle responds:

“That what Fliss …”

And presumably that’s a reference to Fliss Bennee, who we’ve already discussed.

“… said then. Lockdown.”

And you respond:

“Fliss just said they recommend a short national lockdown. We are all ignoring her.”

What did you mean by that?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I don’t recall.

Counsel Inquiry: Why were you having a conversation about something as important as another national lockdown on WhatsApp rather than via official government channels?

Ms Jane Runeckles: My notebook on 18 September records a conversation I had with Fliss specifically on this point, and there are a considerable number of official records of meetings that happen in the subsequent days and weeks on this point, and I don’t believe that we were not taking this seriously.

Counsel Inquiry: If we turn to the final page of this chat, disappearing messages are turned on on 15 June 2021, that wasn’t by you but by another member of the chat. Do you know why disappearing messages were turned on on this legal advice chat?

Ms Jane Runeckles: No.

Counsel Inquiry: I just have a couple more questions for you, Ms Runeckles.

At paragraph 35 of your statement you state that you were involved in discussions with the education minister leading to the decision on 18 March 2020 that schools would close early for the Easter holidays, and there’s also a ministerial advice dated 20 March 2020 – and we won’t pull it up but, for the record, that’s INQ000145342 – which sets out the advice to the minister on this point.

Focusing on this period alone, would you agree that the discussion and decision was based perhaps – perhaps understandably – on infection control, but that in doing so there was no consideration or discussion of impacts of the Rights of Children Measure 2011 or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Ms Jane Runeckles: I don’t think it would be fair to say there was no consideration, and there were certainly discussions about the impact on children of the decision that the minister for education took.

Counsel Inquiry: Would you agree that there was no discussion involving or consulting the Children’s Commissioner for Wales?

Ms Jane Runeckles: At that point, no.

Counsel Inquiry: Would you agree that there was no discussion of the mitigation measures or support children may need at home if they were required to remain at home for a long term?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Would I agree that there was no consideration?

Counsel Inquiry: There was no discussion or consideration of those mitigation measures.

Ms Jane Runeckles: There absolutely was.

Ms Hitchman: Thank you, Ms Runeckles.

My Lady, I have no further questions.

Lady Hallett: Thank you.

Ms Heaven, I think you have a question.

Questions From Ms Heaven

Ms Heaven: Good morning, Ms Runeckles, I represent the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru. Just one very short topic, and it’s divergence and justification. Just to indicate, we don’t need to get the statement up.

So you state at paragraph 60 of your witness statement that 11 May 2020 was the point at which Wales and the UK Government began to diverge in pace and messaging, so it was around this time, that’s what you indicate.

Now, a narrative has been presented to this Inquiry in the witness statements generally from the Welsh Government that the Welsh Government was more cautious following the first lockdown, and it was more cautious and took a more gradual approach to re-opening of society as compared to the UK Government, and this has been presented as one of the justifications for not taking a four nations approach.

Now, on divergence, we obviously know that on 11 May in England the UK Government and Chris Whitty recommended that the public wear face coverings where social distancing wasn’t possible, but on 12 May Frank Atherton advised that face coverings was a matter of personal choice and he actually told the public that.

So do you agree that it isn’t entirely accurate, and I’m not suggesting you’re doing this, but it is from, generally, the statements, to categorise the Welsh Government as always cautious in that first easing of the lockdown, of the first lockdown, as compared to the UK Government being perhaps less cautious? Because clearly if we look at the approach on public messaging and face coverings in May, it’s right, isn’t it, that we can see the Welsh Government taking perhaps a less cautious approach than the UK Government, who were being a bit more precautionary? So do you agree on that topic, certainly it isn’t right to suggest that the Welsh Government were always more cautious? And I’m talking about that May period.

Ms Jane Runeckles: I don’t know that I have suggested that we were more cautious in the way that you describe, have I?

Ms Heaven: No, I’m not saying that necessarily you do. I mean, you indicate in your statement that in May there was a change in pace, that’s when you saw the divergence as beginning. But it is being suggested generally, I think in particularly the statement by the First Minister for Wales, Mr Drakeford, that Wales was more cautious following that first lockdown. So I’m just asking you whether you agree that, on the topic of face coverings, it would seem that the UK Government was more cautious than the Welsh Government at this time?

Ms Jane Runeckles: We certainly took a different position to the UK Government in relation to face coverings.

Ms Heaven: Okay, that’s fair enough. Well, thank you very much.

That’s my question, my Lady.

Questions From the Chair

Lady Hallett: I just have one question I’d forgotten, and I’m sorry to take you back to the test centre, Ms Runeckles.

I understand the reaction if the Welsh Government had no idea that this test centre was being set up, I think I made that plain by my reaction yesterday, so I understand the reaction to the lack of notice and consultation, but given that you’re informed by the private company that they’ve set up a test centre and it can be available the next day for key workers, why turn down that opportunity as opposed to saying “Well, if you can provide us with the data” – you mentioned you wouldn’t get the data fed into the NHS; wouldn’t it have been better to accept the offer of the testing centre, with addition – with amendments?

Ms Jane Runeckles: That’s what happened.

Lady Hallett: That is what happened?

Ms Jane Runeckles: Yeah.

Lady Hallett: Right. Thank you.

(The witness withdrew)

Lady Hallett: Very well, I shall return at 11.35.

(11.18 am)

(A short break)

(11.35 am)

Lady Hallett: Yes.

Ms Cowen: My Lady, may I please call Toby Mason.