2. Ms Rebecca Evans

MS REBECCA EVANS (sworn).

Questions From Counsel to the Inquiry

Lady Hallett: I hope we haven’t kept you waiting for too long.

The Witness: No.

Ms Cecil: Good afternoon, Minister. If you could please give us your full name.

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, Rebecca Mary Evans.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you for attending today and assisting the Inquiry. While you give your evidence, if you could please keep your voice up and into the microphone, and there is a recording being taken, and indeed a note as well, of your evidence today. If I ask you anything that is not clear or you need me to repeat anything, please just say.

Ms Rebecca Evans: I will, thank you.

Counsel Inquiry: Minister, you provided a witness statement, INQ000346272, for the Inquiry. It was signed on 1 November of 2023. I understand that there is one correction that needs to be made to that statement, and it’s on paragraph 232 of the statement, and where it reads “public sector” in relation to contracts, it should read “private”?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: So replace “public” with “private”?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s right, thank you.

Counsel Inquiry: With the exception of that, is your statement true to the best of your knowledge and recollection?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, it is.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you very much.

Minister, you were asked to provide a statement to this module in your capacity as Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, and, latterly, Minister for Finance and Local Government during the period that spanned January of 2020 to May of 2022; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, that’s right.

Counsel Inquiry: Prior to your appointment as the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, you held a number of portfolio roles and other ministerial roles; is that correct?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Having initially been first appointed to Welsh Government in June 2014?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Correct.

Counsel Inquiry: You have been in government for quite some time now?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You were appointed to the role of Minister for Finance and Trefnydd in December of 2018. That was when Mark Drakeford became First Minister?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Correct.

Counsel Inquiry: With regard to your responsibilities in that role, can you just give us a very short overview firstly in relation to your ministerial role in relation to finance and then, secondly, I’ll move on to your role with regard to Trefnydd?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, so in relation to my role in finance, I’m in charge of the Welsh Treasury, I have responsibility for the strategic direction of the use of Welsh Government resources, budget monitoring and management, strategic investment, taxation policy, and also relationships with HMT and HMRC, to name just a few.

Counsel Inquiry: For those who are following outside of Wales, can you assist us with what the Trefnydd is, please?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, the Trefnydd is our Senedd equivalent to the Leader of the House, so I would represent the Welsh Government and the Labour group on the Business Committee, and also respond to requests every Tuesday from colleagues in the Senedd asking for statements from the government on a whole range of issues.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, that role was subsequently transferred away from you in May 2021, when you inherited, instead, the responsibilities for local government; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s correct, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: But focusing, if I may, then, on your role with regard to finance, did that broadly stay the same throughout that period, January 2020, through the elections in May of 2021, to mid-February 2022?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, and to this day, in fact.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You will understand that it’s in your role as minister for finance that I’m going to concentrate my questions on today, but of course if your answers will be assisted by any other issues that fell within your portfolio, please feel free to mention those. But generally speaking, your financial portfolio during that period of January 2020 to May of 2022, which is of course the date range the Inquiry is interested in, your portfolio was focused on managing the Welsh Government’s financial response to the pandemic?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, that’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: It’s also right that you led on all intergovernmental finance-related discussions on behalf of Wales?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: And the main forum through which those discussions were held were the Finance Ministers Quadrilateral; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, that’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Just touching on those meetings for a moment, the quadrilaterals, do you think those meetings took place frequently enough over the duration of the pandemic?

Ms Rebecca Evans: It was certainly an improvement in terms of what came before. When I came into post in December 2018, the finance quadrilateral hadn’t met for a year, I understand, so that concerned me, so to my first meeting I took a paper which essentially set out some proposed terms of reference for future working, which would have been much more frequent meeting, a relationship of parity, rotating chairs, a shared secretariat and so on, and we did make progress on that. So over the course of the pandemic, the quadrilateral met much more frequently, so things improved in terms of the frequency of meetings, but the quality of meetings is always variable.

I will say that things have continued to improve in terms of frequency, and sometimes in terms of the quality of those meetings, following the intergovernmental review work as well, which has really helped put that finance group on a more – more formal footing, which has become more useful over time, so things definitely improved over the course of the pandemic.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, and it’s been formalised now, hasn’t it, as a standing committee, the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s correct, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: How frequently, broadly speaking, were you meeting during the pandemic period?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Over the course of the pandemic I think we would probably meet – I think we met around six times in the first six months, and then I think it was around four times in the next six months, so monthly every six weeks, something like that.

Counsel Inquiry: With regard to the formalisation into the standing committee, is that a structure that you consider would have assisted during the pandemic and will assist in the future?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, definitely, I think the relations, certainly in terms of that structure, are definitely on a better footing for the next pandemic.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

The next topic that I wish to touch upon, please, with you are sources of funding, so looking at the financial situation set-up between the UK Government and the Welsh Government and the fiscal framework.

The fiscal framework was agreed in December 2016, and that establishes the financial powers of the Welsh Government; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s right.

Counsel Inquiry: Just if I may summarise, obviously in headline form, because these issues can get very complicated, but trying to take them as simply as possible, there are four primary sources of funding for the Welsh Government; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s right.

Counsel Inquiry: Just breaking them down, we first have what are called the block grant which are funds that are granted by the UK Government.

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: The second are those funds that are raised internally within Wales by means of taxation or other charges. The third is borrowing capacity by the Welsh Government. And the fourth is European Union structural funds that become available.

Ms Rebecca Evans: Correct.

Counsel Inquiry: So perhaps if I can concentrate, if I may, on the block grant and the relationships between Wales and the UK. Just very briefly, what is the annual block grant?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So at the time of the pandemic it was around £20 billion but now that’s increased to around £23 billion.

Counsel Inquiry: Just dealing with –

Ms Rebecca Evans: Sorry, I should say the 23 includes the money that we raise through tax so it would have been £18 billion in terms of block grant and the rest would have been raised in tax and around 20 now.

Counsel Inquiry: Just so that everyone understands what a block grant is in principle, that’s a level of public expenditure that is decided by the UK Government through the Treasury to be allocated to Wales each year; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, that’s right, it’s very much a function of how much the UK Government decides is needed to be spent in England in particular, so the overall amount of money spent within the UK is definitely decided by the UK Government, and the block grant really does give us a population share of that, but also with a needs-based formula attached to that as well. So for every £100 spent in England we will have a population share of around 5.6, and then when you apply the needs-based element over that, it’s around 5.8.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

And in addition to that annual block grant, which as you say is a share, effectively, of the overall public expenditure within the UK, the Welsh Government also receives what’s called the Barnett consequential funding element, and that can be both positive and negative, that’s why I say it can get complicated, but in very short form what is Barnett consequential funding?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So the block grant is the funding as you’ve described, and we would normally have that through a comprehensive spending review or a single-year funding round, but then applied to that we have changes that are made through the year and they’re formalised then at supplementary estimates, which happens right at the end of the year, usually around February time. And basically, if the UK Government departments increase spending in areas which are devolved, then we will receive that share, population plus the needs-based, but also, equally, if the UK Government departments underspend or money is shifted away from those areas where we have devolved responsibility, then our budget will be reduced as well. So that does make it very difficult, even in a normal year, to manage the budget, especially when you only get clarity at the very end of the financial year.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. So positive funding, just giving an example, plucked out of the air for the moment, is, for example, where the UK Government allocates funding, as you say, for a policy area that is devolved within Wales, it could be health, it could be education, and as a consequence there is then an additional sum that is provided to the devolved nation, applying what’s called the Barnett formula?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Exactly.

Counsel Inquiry: And that, for example, could be positive, but ultimately it’s for the devolved government to decide how to spend that money once it’s allocated. Alternatively, as you say, where there is an underspend within one of those policy areas within English budgets, then there will be a clawback situation or a negative formula that’s applied to the allocation of funding?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, that’s correct, but sometimes those things will balance each other out at the end of the financial year as well, so you really are almost waiting until the end of the year to know what your budget is for the year that you’ve just been through.

Counsel Inquiry: That’s because those supplementary estimates that you’ve referred to come in January or February, towards the end of the financial year?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s correct. And one of the flexibilities that we have been asking the UK Government to consider, and which I think would be helpful for future years, would be for any additional funding which comes through following an autumn statement, so anything that comes through in supplementary estimates, or even reductions that come through in supplementary estimates, that we’re able to take those through into the next financial year.

So we did see some of that in the pandemic, so at the end of the 2020/21 financial year we were able to negotiate with the chief secretaries to the Treasury to take forward £600 million which had been announced very late in the financial year. It wouldn’t have made good sense for us to try to deploy that – I mean, that’s a huge amount of money for us – very late in the financial year, so it was agreed by exception that we could carry it over and it helped with our response in the next financial year.

So what we would prefer would be a situation where you’re not having to negotiate those kinds of things every time, but just as a part of the mechanism, if things come through very late, then you can manage over the financial years.

Counsel Inquiry: Just dealing with that for one moment and putting it in context, you said that that was an exception, and what are the normal limits on carry-overs into the following financial year?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So as part of the fiscal framework, we have the Wales Reserve. The Wales Reserve is able to hold overall £350 million. And crucially, the size of the Wales Reserve hasn’t grown at all since the time it was established, which means that actually in the next financial year it will be worth 23% less than it was at the time it was set. And you can – imagine trying to land your budget £23 billion on a Wales Reserve of £350 million. That’s a pretty high wire act in normal circumstances.

So, again, something that I think would help for the future would be for that Wales Reserve just to be uprated in line with inflation and then for that uprating in line with inflation to happen every year after that. And that’s something that it’s not just the Welsh Government calling for, it’s something that the IFS has said would be a good idea, the Wales Governance Centre, and actually it’s not a political point at all because recently in the Senedd we had a debate which was –

Counsel Inquiry: Perhaps I could just pause you there, Minister, only because you’ll appreciate that those very high-level issues are likely to be outside of the scope ultimately of this Inquiry, in terms of the bigger issues, and of course what this Inquiry’s focusing on is in relation to the pandemic. And of course financial flexibility in relation to the pandemic is one of those aspects, but you’re talking about much more significant issues.

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yeah, just to say the reason I am talking about it is to try to give some ideas for things that would help a government better respond to a pandemic in future.

Counsel Inquiry: Absolutely. And I’m sure that’s been taken on board.

If I may, though, deal with the upshot in relation to 2020 through to 2021, and the financial position with regard to Wales in relation to the pandemic response, if I can just take you please to paragraph 51 of your witness statement.

You give an example, going back to what you were saying before, of underspend and effectively money being recouped, and you explain that:

“The total underspend in 2020-21 by all UK government departments was £25bn – the UK Department for Health and Social Care alone underspent by over 9%, returning £18.6bn to the Treasury. Overall, UK departments returned almost 6% of their funding to the Treasury that year. In Wales, the figure returned represented only 1% of our available resources. A Barnett share of the funding returned to Treasury by UK departments would have been well in excess of £1bn, rather than the much lower £155m …”

Which was returned.

So is it correct that by the end of that 2020/2021 financial year, and I’m going to bring you into the finances in relation to the pandemic in due course, there was a return of £155 million to HM Treasury?

Ms Rebecca Evans: There was, but that only happened at least a year or perhaps even two years after that.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed.

Ms Rebecca Evans: And that was because – there were discussions that were undertaken at official level with the UK Government whereby we would be able to switch revenue to capital at the end of the year, which is a normal thing, it happens all the time, but unfortunately in this year, because of course we do need the Chief Secretary’s agreement to do that, it was denied. Had we been able to switch that money from revenue to capital, then actually we would have sent nothing back at all to Treasury.

I think that this also, though, speaks to the importance of the Barnett guarantee as well, because can you imagine a situation where, right at the end of the year, supplementary estimates, we’re being asked to send £1 billion back to Treasury, that would have been completely unmanageable. So I think it does show how valuable the Barnett guarantee was for us as well.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, and that’s what we’re going to come on to. Really it’s really just to lay the groundwork and the foundations for what we’re going to be talking about in due course.

I do want to just pick up, if I may, before going into the detail of that, on one aspect within your statement, and it’s at paragraph 53, page 18, where you say that you considered that Wales had been treated unfairly. And that – and that’s because:

“There is a general approach from HM Treasury which treats devolved governments as ‘just another spending department’.”

What do you mean by that?

Lady Hallett: Again, we seem to be straying from Covid-19, unless you’re going to say this does affect the pandemic. This seems to be quite a big question about the devolution settlement and …

Ms Cecil: I can certainly bring it back to the pandemic, because that’s why I say it’s contextual as opposed to anything else.

Just in relation to the pandemic, was that something that you experienced or not?

Ms Rebecca Evans: I think it’s definitely the case from a finance perspective, because the UK Government I don’t think recognises that we are responsible to the Senedd, that we have an incredible amount of scrutiny from the Welsh media, we have the Welsh public very interested in the choices that we make. And I think that in treating us like another UK Government department, it doesn’t necessarily recognise the unique context that we have here in Wales – and the fact that we are a government, we’re not just another department.

Counsel Inquiry: I’m going to bring you now, if I may, into the pandemic response and financial issues, and firstly then deal with your role in Cabinet and the Star Chamber.

You obviously, along with other Welsh ministers, were members of the Welsh Cabinet. Each minister, we’ve heard, has their own portfolio areas. Generally speaking, to what extent do you believe your contribution at meetings of Cabinet or in the ministerial calls were guided in the main by financial considerations? How were you putting forward your portfolio? Or were you looking at the broader picture?

Ms Rebecca Evans: I think that ministers in Cabinet have two distinct but important roles: so on the one hand you’re custodian of your own portfolio, so I was responsible for all finance matters, but equally then, you know, you take part in those Cabinet-wide discussions which require a Cabinet view.

So 21-day reviews would be a really good example of those discussions which we had Cabinet-wide. Of course the health minister would bring a particular perspective, I would bring a financial perspective, but then you also consider it in the round as well, because you have collective responsibility for those decisions which are taken.

Counsel Inquiry: How do you consider that you struck the balance in your contributions then in Cabinet between considering, as I say, your portfolio responsibilities of financial and economic considerations and how NPIs or any other intervention could be delivered in terms of finances available and that of public health concerns and scientific advice?

Ms Rebecca Evans: I think there are good examples where of course we had to consider the financial implications of the choices available to us, and I know there’s an intention to come on to the firebreak and potentially Omicron in the session as well, and I think that those will give examples as to where the financial considerations were particularly acute in those discussions.

Counsel Inquiry: Did you undertake any modelling of NPIs in relation to the financial impacts of acting or not acting, essentially both sides of the coin, did you undertake any financial and economic modelling in that respect?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So I didn’t do that myself, but of course we’ve got –

Counsel Inquiry: Within your team.

Ms Rebecca Evans: We’ve got Welsh Treasury, and we’ve got a team of analysts, we’ve got the Chief Economist and his team of economists within the Welsh Treasury as well, and they would undertake analysis.

What I will say as well is that they were involved very early on and they worked with the policy leads for various things. So the Economic Resilience Fund, for example, they’d be working very early on with the policy leads to undertake the analysis there, rather than being presented with a proposal which is almost done and then considering the economic impacts of it.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. I’m going to move now to the Star Chamber, and it was established by the First Minister on 23 March 2020, so relatively early in terms of the pandemic, and that was to oversee and co-ordinate the Welsh Government’s overall fiscal response to the crisis; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Can you assist with why it was established at that point? It’s obviously a new meeting point.

Ms Rebecca Evans: It was, it was clear by that point that the response to the pandemic was going to require significant, you know, significant fiscal response, so it really was to have that forum where we could have those discussions, and one of the first things that we did through the Star Chamber was undertake the re-prioritisation exercise –

Counsel Inquiry: I’m going to come on to that in just a moment, so I’ll just pause you there.

In relation to the composition or make-up and purpose of the Star Chamber, essentially it was so that a small group could assess the various financial papers, proposals, budgets, as you say, fiscal considerations within that small group and provide advice to you; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, that’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: In terms of decision-making within the Star Chamber, did the Star Chamber take those decisions or did you take decisions?

Ms Rebecca Evans: No, I took the decisions. The membership of the Star Chamber, other than having one other minister there, was officials and also one external person and special advisers, so they wouldn’t have had the authority to take those decisions in any case.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Just I’m asking for your opinion for one moment, do you think the Star Chamber should have taken those decisions collectively, like the Cabinet, in terms of those financial decisions, or were there benefits to final decisions being vested in you alone?

Ms Rebecca Evans: No, I definitely think that those are decisions for the finance minister rather than decisions which should be taken by anyone else.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I’m going to turn now to the re-prioritisation exercise that you’ve just mentioned, and indeed just dealing with that.

That exercise was to identify areas of Welsh Government spending, both revenue and capital spending, which could be repurposed, in short, in order to assist with the Covid-19 response; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Correct, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Those funds would then be repurposed and held in what was called the Covid-19 response reserve?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Was that exercise, that re-prioritisation exercise, completed once or at various points throughout the pandemic?

Ms Rebecca Evans: In the end it was only needed the once, so we undertook that at the start of the pandemic, and it resulted in around a quarter of a billion pounds going into the Covid-19 response reserve.

I did warn colleagues at the time that it might be something that we would need to revisit and have another round of re-prioritisation, but in the event, because of the consequential funding which was coming through and also the Barnett guarantee, which came later, we didn’t need to undertake any further re-prioritisation, but colleagues would re-prioritise within their own budgets as well.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Did the response reserve also include the money from the UK Government that came in?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, it did, as well as realignment of WEFO budgets as well.

Counsel Inquiry: Of what, sorry?

Ms Rebecca Evans: European funding budgets.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, European funding budgets.

With regard to the re-prioritisation exercise, what considerations did the Star Chamber have in mind when considering that exercise?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So we set some principles by which colleagues should – and when I say colleagues, I mean my ministerial colleagues – should undertake re-prioritisation within their portfolios. The first of those, that we should obviously continue to do those life and limb things which needed to be undertaken, and then also we couldn’t really touch our statutory commitments, and then also we needed to protect as far as possible our key programme for government commitments, but beyond that I asked colleagues to look through their budgets to see what could be repurposed, and I’ve given in my written evidence a range of examples there.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, and the Star Chamber then in turn reviewed those ministerial – the ministerial advice that was coming in from each department in relation to the re-prioritisation; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s correct, and I think I had a meeting with each minister as well to talk through their proposals, what the implications would be, and to push a little bit further to see if there was anything else they could give up at that point as well.

Counsel Inquiry: And if – just dealing with pandemic responses and interventions, if a minister wished to fund such a pandemic intervention from within their existing budgetary allocations, so, for example, the re-prioritisation within their existing budget, not to put it to the Reserve but to deal with an intervention themselves, so it was cost neutral or had a cost, did they have to seek your approval or were they ministerial decisions within departmental governmental decision-making?

Ms Rebecca Evans: No, so I allowed colleagues to re-prioritise within their own budgets, and again I’ve got some examples in the paper. So the education minister, for example, was able to re-prioritise some funding from within her budget at the time towards providing children with IT kit in schools. So I just needed to be informed of those choices which were being made, I didn’t have to approve them.

Counsel Inquiry: Were there any financial limitations in relation to the extent to which individual ministers could repurpose their own budgets?

Ms Rebecca Evans: No, beyond what they’d already given up, there was nothing that they couldn’t do there.

Counsel Inquiry: With regard to the Star Chamber, how frequently did the Star Chamber meet?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So at one point we were meeting every day, and then I think it was a couple of times a week at least then through the pandemic, for quite some time, until October of 2020, when we met for the last time. And the reason for that, really, was that the systems were well set up, we had already funded then some of the big programmes that we needed to fund, so it was just a case of making sure that those programmes had enough money to keep going, it didn’t need that kind of level of scrutiny and interrogation that late on, because it was all functioning.

Counsel Inquiry: You are aware that there were some criticisms or concerns in relation to how the Star Chamber was operating, whether it was transparent, for example, how decisions were being made, how individual requests for funding were being dealt with. Did you take any steps to address those concerns?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, so I knew that some colleagues felt a bit uneasy about the Star Chamber process, and I think that’s understandable because it was such a diversion from the way in which we would normally go about setting the budgets, which – you know, we have our normal budget-setting process, when my colleagues have their budgets then they manage them through the year. This was a completely different approach. So I understood the concern there.

In the terms of reference for the Star Chamber, it said that other ministers could be – could attend the Star Chamber by invitation. We changed that pretty quickly so that other ministers could attend the Star Chamber at their requests, and many of them did, and it was to talk through some of those proposals, because also it meant that we were able to ask those questions in real time, it wasn’t a case then of, you know, potentially holding up things, we definitely didn’t want to do that.

So we did change that approach over time to try to make colleagues feel more comfortable with what was a very new approach to allocating funding.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

You also developed during the course of the pandemic a financial dashboard, is that right too, setting out, in short, resources that the Welsh Government had available to respond to the pandemic, and the aggregate and detailed allocations that had been made to date, so that other ministers and individuals could easily access and see where finances were being allocated?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s correct. And I shared it with Cabinet on a weekly basis, so everybody had the latest picture.

Counsel Inquiry: Did that dashboard contain, in your view, all of the relevant information in terms of fiscal information and economic, financial information that was required by ministers to assist in their decision-making, or do you consider that further information would have been helpful?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So I think that the purpose of the dashboard really was transparency for colleagues. I think it was mainly there to help me in my decision-making, but also wanting to be clear with colleagues as to where we were overall and to explain to colleagues, I suppose, if there were times when I wasn’t able to provide them with additional funding.

So I think that it did provide, you know, a really year, of where the funding was going, and it showed the sources of the funding. But then we had four pillars where the funding went to: supporting the economy, health and public services, the voluntary sector and communities, and transport. And those were our four pillars of the response to the pandemic, if you like.

Counsel Inquiry: And essentially a visual aid?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Now if I can turn, please, to March of 2020 and just deal briefly with your interactions with the then Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, in relation to funding and planning with regard to the potential impact of the pandemic. You wrote a letter on 6 March. We can see that on the screen there.

Is that the first time that funding for the pandemic was raised between the Welsh Government and the UK Government?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Probably. I couldn’t say for sure. I can’t tell if there was a finance quadrilateral before that date. If there was, it would have been raised there. But in writing I think that’s the first time that it’s raised.

Counsel Inquiry: That was followed up by a written statement on 11 March, which explained that you were working closely with the UK Government and other devolved administrations to prepare for the Covid-19 response. But you say in relation to those measures, that would be enacted in terms of the NHS and other measures for business support and individual support, that further clarity was needed.

Can you recall now what was the issue in relation to a lack of clarity?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, so the letter that I wrote to the Chancellor on 6 March was ahead of the spring budget, so that’s almost a set piece letter that I write ahead of every fiscal event setting out the priorities for Wales, and in that I do recognise that there would be an impact beyond health and social care of the pandemic and I do say that it would require a significant fiscal remedial package from the UK based on need. And then 11 March, and the significance of this written statement is that that was the day of the UK Government’s spring statement .

Now, although the Chancellor announced some measures in that in relation to support for business, and also was clear that the NHS would get all of the support it needed, actually there was no funding which came through in the spring statement. That funding would come later through the form of the Barnett guarantee, so it was that kind of clarity that we were after really –

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Ms Rebecca Evans: – but I should say that we do – we did make it clear that we were welcoming those early remarks about the health service and also about support for business as well.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed.

In your subsequent correspondence between you and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in relation to – I don’t need to necessarily have that brought up, but that’s very helpful – setting out, essentially, what you believe the various allocations of funding according to the Barnett formula would be.

When did you first receive confirmation about the extra funding that would be available and received by you, the Welsh Government?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So we received small amounts of information over a period of time, so this was one of the real challenges that we had at the start of the pandemic, was understanding what the size of the consequential funding was and, you know, what it applied to, if you like. So you can see actually in the letter that you’ve referred to on the 13th that I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I’m actually in that letter sharing my planning assumptions, because we didn’t have any concrete information from Treasury so we had to set out what we assumed would be coming to Wales, having applied the Barnett formula for our own calculations to make that understanding, and I’m saying to the Chancellor there essentially, “This is what we’re factoring into our assumptions, you need to tell us if we’re wrong here”.

So there’s all that as well. But I think, importantly, in that letter, I do set out that Treasury is in a unique position to enable or prevent the devolved governments from taking timely decisions to respond to the crisis. So we’re even setting that out in March, and of course that would become important later on through the firebreak and Omicron and so on.

Counsel Inquiry: Can you recall when clarity was provided?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So ultimately clarity came in the autumn statement of that year when we had the transparency tables through. So all the way through March, April, May, June, July we were having small amounts of information coming through, and that would happen quite regularly but it was often the case, and I’ve seen notes from officials about their meetings with the devolved team in Treasury, that sometimes even the devolved team in Treasury wasn’t aware of announcements which were coming through, so getting the right information was really tough.

When we got to the Barnett guarantee, that helped a lot, but even after that we were pressing for a reconciliation, which is essentially where they set out the different sums that have been – or the different interventions that have been provided for through the guarantee, so that we can look at it and see what’s included and what isn’t. Because sometimes there were big ticket items, for example additional funding for Transport for London, now, that would lead to significant consequentials for us but we didn’t know if it was included, so, you know, that made it difficult for us.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. And just dealing then, as I say, going back to the March position, so before the Barnett guarantee and so on, the Economic Resilience Fund was announced by the First Minister on 30 March of 2020, so still relatively early in the pandemic. That was, in short, the Welsh Government’s business support scheme; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: In relation to that, what was the purpose of the ERF, the Economic Resilience Fund?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So the minister for economy was in charge of the Economic Resilience Fund, my role was about releasing the funding and ensuring that the interventions were affordable to the Welsh Government, so, you know, using things like the dashboard and the Star Chamber and so on. But the purpose of the fund really was to support businesses in a number of ways. One, if a business was in lockdown, for example, we’d support their operational costs. It’s really important to recognise that the Welsh Government is not responsible for wage costs, so UK Government is in charge of wage costs, so furlough, for example –

Counsel Inquiry: So those were UK Governmental schemes that applied across the whole of the United Kingdom?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yeah, and we wouldn’t have the systems or the fiscal power to do that, what we could do was support operating costs. And we always looked to see if there were ways in which we could potentially fill the gaps in some support as well. So I think I recall – and the economy minister would be better off to answer these questions, but support, for example, around start-ups and so on. So we tried to fill the gaps wherever we could.

Counsel Inquiry: Essentially an additional funding resource to that which was being provided across the United Kingdom by the UK Government in its overarching response?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s right, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

One of the themes that does arise within the minutes of the Star Chambers is the potential for duplication between the different forms of financial support, including the ERF. Was that something that concerned you, effectively that you had a number of funds that could all be utilised by the same individuals, so you had that duplication?

Ms Rebecca Evans: I think that really showed part of the value of the Star Chamber, in the sense that we would have that overview across all of the interventions which were taking place. And we were very clear. For example, you’ll see in the minutes of some of the Star Chamber meetings we would have proposals for financial support for a particular sector, but we would ask first: well, hang on, are the staff able to be furloughed? And, you know, asking those kind of questions, to avoid duplication, we were very careful to do that. And I think that was one of the benefits of the Star Chamber.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I now want to move, if I may, to the May/June period of 2020, so moving through the pandemic, and in the Cabinet meetings that took place on 4 May 2020, uncertainty was noted with regard to the prospect of further consequentials owing to a Treasury-based re-prioritisation exercise across Whitehall, and a risk, therefore, was identified to the Welsh Government that it could overcommit to the response and recovery measures early in the financial year, with limited opportunity to free up resources from elsewhere later.

Firstly, at that point, you’ve already explained, all the way through until the Barnett guarantee you considered the position to be uncertain generally; is there any way that that could have been mitigated in May and June of 2020?

Ms Rebecca Evans: I think much clearer indications from UK Government in terms of the interventions that it was making, what the funding would be, where the funding was coming from. So you’ll see in those minutes that I describe my concern about the fact that the UK Government’s re-prioritisation exercise to which you refer might have included health and local government. Now, those are two really big spending blocks for the UK Government, extra important for us here in Wales comparatively, so if the UK Government was to be reducing funding through parts of health or parts of local government, then it would have a knock-on impact for us in the way that you described at the start about those negative consequentials, so that was our real concern there.

Counsel Inquiry: In terms of the impact that all of those different factors had on decisions the Welsh Government was taking at this stage of the pandemic, did that actually have any impact on decision-making in relation to NPIs or any of the bigger decisions that were taken?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So I don’t think it impacted on the big decisions that we were taking at this point, but we were carrying an awful lot of risk in terms of the allocations that we’d already made and the commitments that we’d already made. So it was a very, very uncomfortable place to be when you don’t have the certainty that the funding’s going to be there. But we were making those decisions in any case.

Counsel Inquiry: At that point, really towards the end – coming towards the end of the summer, was a second wave being foreseen, or was that something that was still some time away from being predicted, from your recollection?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So are we talking July or …?

Counsel Inquiry: June. June 2020.

Ms Rebecca Evans: Let me see. Well, on 4 June I did, alongside Ken Skates, write to the Chancellor, and at that point I was asking about the intention to revive the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, so furlough, or the self-employed support scheme as well in the event of a second peak or of the need for local lockdowns, so obviously we were thinking about that as early as June 4th.

Counsel Inquiry: There were a number of communications between you and the UK Government and your colleagues, actually, across the devolved administrations, in relation to funding through the pandemic. And indeed, just picking up on the letters that you were writing on 3 July 2020, you sent a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

And that’s INQ000066172.

You talk about the general current economic conditions. Of course this is after coming out of lockdown essentially, moving through.

And it talks about, as I say, the UK economy and the retraction there, the recession. It then continues to speak on and deals with employment support schemes and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, the self-employed income support scheme.

Those are topics that we will revisit, but if I can just deal with one aspect there. You asked them for clarification as to whether there is an intention to revive the JRS and SEISS schemes if there is a second peak or local lockdowns.

Did you receive, firstly, the JRS and the SEISS? Those were UK Treasury-wide schemes; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: They’re the furlough schemes and those that are related to self-employment –

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: – support also.

To what extent was the Welsh Government, if at all, involved in decision-making regarding those schemes?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So the first thing to say is we didn’t receive a response to the letter to which I refer, which is on the screen at the moment, which was sent on 4 June.

We weren’t involved in the setting up of the furlough schemes or the self-employed support schemes. Those are very much UK Government functions in the sense that those wage support schemes and those – you know, benefits and welfare, it is a reserved function, so we wouldn’t expect to be, you know, deeply involved in the detail of that, but nonetheless you would expect to have at least some kind of discussion about what might be – you know, what might be helpful for the response in Wales. But those kind of discussions really were about UK Government telling us, through the finance quadrilateral meetings, what their intentions were rather than, you know, exploring with us the shape of those, those schemes.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Just dealing with those schemes, what sorts of decisions, in terms of the decisions that the Welsh Government would be taking, would those schemes have an impact on?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So those schemes, and we’ve been really clear that we absolutely welcomed them, they were the right thing for the UK Government to do, those schemes allowed us, when they were available, to take decisions, for example, about lockdown. The challenges came when those schemes weren’t available, then the impacts of locking down and preventing businesses from operating would have been awful. But in the sense of, you know, large-scale business closures, you’d have, you know, large-scale unemployment, you’d have businesses closing and just not being able to re-employ their staff again. So furlough was absolutely critical in terms of allowing businesses – we called it hibernating – to hibernate and then come back.

Counsel Inquiry: So essentially you saw them as closely related to lockdown –

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: – decisions? Thank you.

There were a number, then, of further conversations with your counterparts in other devolved administrations, government departments and indeed the Treasury, and eventually there came a stage where there was a Barnett guarantee that was agreed upon.

Firstly, what was the Barnett guarantee?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So the Barnett guarantee reflected the consequential funding which would come to Wales as a result of decisions taken by the UK Government in areas which were devolved to Wales. But, as you’ve described, the difficulty was there in terms of getting a proper understanding as to what funding exactly would be coming to Wales, and we needed that to be able to plan.

I should say the scale of the additional funding which came to Wales in that financial year 2020/21 was huge, it was £5.2 billion, a quarter of our normal budget, so we did need that kind of certainty. What the Barnett guarantee did was say that: for the rest of the financial year your Barnett consequentials will not fall below this particular point.

So when that arrived it was very useful. It should have happened earlier and we should have had that kind of reconciliation earlier than we did then, which came at the autumn statement. So it was definitely a huge step forward, really helpful, but even more clarity was needed than we were given.

Counsel Inquiry: What additional clarity or flexibility would you – well, firstly, did you ask for and, secondly, did you receive?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So in terms of clarity we were asking all the way through the year, both administerial level and at official level for that reconciliation, because that really does tell you where you are in terms of the consequential funding. So that didn’t come till the autumn, which was unfortunate. You know, were there to be another pandemic, if we could have those reconciliations every – every couple of months, that would help a lot in terms of that clarity and transparency.

In terms of the fiscal flexibilities, what we did – asked about was that carrying over at the end of the financial year, which I talked about previously. We asked to increase our borrowing limit, bearing in mind, of course, we can only borrow for capital investment, which is essentially infrastructure rather than day-to-day spend.

We also asked for full access to the Wales Reserve. So I’ve described how that’s worth £350 million. That would have helped a bit, especially at the start of the pandemic, but in any financial year you’re only able to draw down £125 million revenue and £50 million capital. So those seemed pretty arbitrary in terms of drawdown limits. And the Chief Secretary to the Treasury can agree for you to draw down the entire amount from the Wales Reserve. They didn’t agree during the pandemic but they did agree in this financial year because of the cost of living crisis, so there doesn’t seem to be any real rhyme or reason, so I think there are things we should do in future related to the fiscal framework which just make things clearer and don’t rely on how well disposed to devolution the CST of the day is, for example, how helpful the CST of the day is. We have the systems there and the systems work, regardless of personalities.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Moving on then from the Barnett guarantee and just on to one specific topic of policy, Eat Out to Help Out. In relation to that, was there any involvement by the Welsh Government in the Eat Out to Help Out decision?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So not to my knowledge, certainly not from a finance perspective, but then there isn’t really a particular finance angle to that, it’s more economic, and I’m sure that the UK Government would have had its own health advice on that as well.

I did see in the evidence that the Prime Minister has given to the Inquiry that Wales didn’t ask to opt out, which I thought was a curious thing to say, because there’s no mechanism within the devolution settlement for us to opt in or out of UK Government programmes and decisions. So that was a curious thing I think to say.

Devolution would look very different if we were able to opt in and out of choices that the UK Government makes, but that’s not devolution.

Counsel Inquiry: May I just ask, to the best of your knowledge, were any objections raised to the scheme by either you, with your finance hat on, or by the Welsh Government more generally?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Not to my knowledge. I do know it was, you know, a popular scheme amongst businesses in Wales, so you should recognise that as well. But, you know, this was a UK Government scheme, it’s for the UK Government to defend its scheme.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Moving now to firebreak, please, and the firebreak that took place in late October of 2020. The decision was taken in principle to institute a firebreak in a meeting that took place on 15 October 2020. There were a number of proposals that were considered within the meeting, but if I can just please call up the paper that was considered.

It’s at INQ000048876.

It’s entitled “Fire Break Options and Analysis”. You can see it, hopefully, on the screen in front of you.

Turning to page 2, if I may, one consideration in relevance to the firebreak, and you’ve alluded to it already, was that relating to the support for businesses and employees in the event that restrictions were reintroduced. What it states here is that:

“The scope to support businesses and employees in the event of national restrictions being reintroduced is largely dependent … [Document read] … impacted by national restrictions.”

We see as it goes – continues down the page, that there are references to a new scheme in relation to the enhanced job support scheme that was announced by the Chancellor on 9 October, dealing with wage costs, furlough costs, and so on and so forth.

That scheme was to commence on 1 November, so approximately two to three weeks later. One of the issues that was debated at length was the length of the firebreak. The minutes of the Cabinet meeting reflect that and they also record the fact that scientific advice was that a minimum of two weeks was required but three weeks was preferable. Then it speaks about balancing, essentially, the need to consider that the longer restrictions remain in place the greater the economic, financial and social impact on the wellbeing of individuals. But, as I say, nonetheless it was decided in principle that a circuit-breaker would be introduced. And that was on 15 October.

It was after that decision that there was then a series of correspondence between the First Minister and the Chancellor about income support for that firebreak. But with regard to the length of that firebreak, two or three weeks, that had already been decided prior to those discussions, hadn’t it, within that Cabinet meeting on 15 October?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So the purpose of the Cabinet meeting on 15 October was to take in principle a decision so that further work could be done and then we met the next week then to agree the substantive decision. And you’re absolutely right, it was the case that the advice was that there should be a minimum of two weeks. Three weeks would be preferable. But if it was two weeks then the advice should be stay home, if it was three weeks it could be stay local. So those were the considerations we were making at the time. But, you know, the longer the firebreak, as you said, the greater the economic harm as well, so we were very aware of those things.

And it’s worth remembering as well at this point we had large parts of Wales under those local restrictions as well, so I think that one of the challenges that we didn’t know at the time, I think, was that the Kent variant was starting to become more significant, and I think that that impacted on the success or otherwise of the firebreak, because although it did push back the pandemic by, I think it was three weeks, I understand, you know, some of that gain wasn’t as significant as we’d expected, because of the Kent variant being – you know, taking hold.

Lady Hallett: I think Ms Cecil’s question was: had the decision in principle been taken on 15 October for a two-week firebreak?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So in principle I think that’s the decision that we took. Because Swansea University modelling told us in that Cabinet paper on the 15th that two weeks would bring R down from 1.4 to 0.8, and the purpose of the firebreak would be to both bring R under 1 but then also to consider how we revised the national rules so that we could look into, you know, going into winter. But, as you’ve seen there, things were more difficult than we’d expected.

Ms Cecil: Correspondence was then only entered into with the UK Government and the Chancellor subsequent to that decision in principle; do you accept that, Minister?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yeah, that seems to be the case, because, as you say, the letter went from the FM on the 16th.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. And that letter requested that the scheme, the new scheme, be brought forward to 23 October, to start essentially the same date as that firebreak. And without getting into the detail of it, there were otherwise two parallel schemes, potentially, running for that period.

Dealing with that very briefly, at the point on 15 October when the decision for a firebreak was taken, the Cabinet were already aware that there was an inability to bring the claims date forward from the commencement of 1 November to 23 October or earlier than that; that’s correct, isn’t it?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Can you repeat the question?

Counsel Inquiry: Yes, of course, sorry, it may have got a little bit muddled, let me deal with that again.

The new schemes that were being announced by the UK Government had been announced on 9 October, so prior to the Cabinet meeting on 15 October where the decision for the firebreak was undertaken.

Prior to the announcement of that new scheme on 9 October, the devolved administrations had been briefed on that scheme; that’s correct, isn’t it?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Right.

Counsel Inquiry: As part of that briefing, the devolved administrations had been told that that job support scheme could not be brought forward, owing to difficulties in HMRC’s delivery timelines; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: So that decision on 15 October was taken with the full knowledge that that JRS scheme could not be brought forward; that’s correct, isn’t it?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So the letter that we had in response from the Chancellor said that they couldn’t bring the enhanced JSS forward due to limitations in HMRC delivery times, but – that letter is undated from the Chancellor, but I’m assuming it was after the 16th.

Counsel Inquiry: Perhaps I can assist in relation to the letter.

If I can bring that up, it’s INQ000216555, please.

The response – this is the response of 19 October, if that helps. It’s the response to the letter, you can see, of 16 October from the First Minister. If we read down, it says:

“Unfortunately, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I referenced in our briefing with the Devolved Administrations in … [Document read] … limitations in HMRC delivery timelines.”

Then what is being referenced there is the briefing that took place prior to the scheme being announced and the scheme was announced on 9 October.

Ms Rebecca Evans: Okay.

Counsel Inquiry: We’ve established that the devolved administrations, you’ve agreed, were given advance notification and briefed on that scheme, so the point that I’m putting to you is that when you took the decision on 15 October, you were already aware that those timelines could not be brought forward, and it was only after that that again you then entered into subsequent correspondence?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Well, I think there are questions to be asked of HMRC as to whether those timelines could be brought forward. Had they needed to be brought forward for England, I think HMRC could certainly have potentially pulled out the stops to do that. We don’t know, that’s not a question that I can answer, but I think that, you know, there’s absolutely no harm at all in doing what we should do, which was to press.

And the reason why we were asking for that scheme to be brought forward, because it was more generous, so it would have been better for employees and also employers, who wouldn’t have had to pay the contribution that they had to pay under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which is again why I found it curious that the Prime Minister has said in his written evidence to the Inquiry that the Welsh Government didn’t ask for the CJRS to be extended. Well, why would we? Because that was less generous. What we wanted was a better deal for businesses in Wales.

And in the end, you know, we did have to undertake the action that we did, despite the fact that it was unreasonable to ask employers to apply for two schemes for the same employee. But, you know, these were some of the – some of the difficulties. And it is what the FM talks about in terms of Treasury operating for England. Because when the UK Government decided then it would take action, then of course the CJRS was changed and there was a better package available.

Counsel Inquiry: I’ve got just one final question in relation to that, please, and that is simply: was it reasonable to expect the UK Government to be able to change the operation of that scheme in one week, decision made in principle on the 15th, when it could be brought into force effectively, the firebreak, on the 23rd?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, I think that is absolutely reasonable, or at least to ask the UK Government to set out in a bit more detail what the operational problems are.

And one of the things I think is really interesting is that in the UK Government’s evidence they often talk about the level of consequential funding that we’d had at this point, as if that would help us, you know, provide a scheme of our own. So if HMRC can’t change the operational data within a week, how on earth is the Welsh Government going to have powers devolved to us to set up an entirely new operation and department to be able to do this kind of thing for ourselves? We need the UK Government to be working with us in order to protect businesses.

Ms Cecil: Thank you, Minister –

Lady Hallett: – all about the amount of money in the scheme. So the job retention scheme was going to go on until 31 October. So had you had a firebreak of two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, whatever, there would have been a job retention scheme in place?

Ms Rebecca Evans: There would, yes.

Lady Hallett: And it was all about how much money those in receipt of payments got either under the job retention scheme or under the new scheme , which was more generous?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, the new scheme would have been more generous . But also the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme required employer contributions, whereas the scheme which we were asking to be brought forward wouldn’t. So again, that would have been better –

Lady Hallett: But it’s not that the UK Government wasn’t providing financial support, it was simply that you wanted the new amount of money that would come under the new scheme?

Ms Rebecca Evans: That’s correct, and we also didn’t want businesses to have to apply twice for the same person. But also some of the worst affected sectors had staff who, because of the – who weren’t eligible for the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, because that required staff to have been furloughed before 30 June – and of course we’re talking about tourism, retail, hospitality businesses here, which were, you know, recruiting after that date, so there were potentially employees who wouldn’t have been eligible for support under that CJRS.

Ms Cecil: Thank you.

I’ve no further questions, Chair, but there are some questions on behalf of core participants.

Lady Hallett: There are.

Ms Heaven, I think – I think you’ve got a question that on my list originally was in the wrong – for the wrong witness. So I think – have you got three questions or two?

Ms Heaven: Only two now, I’ve reduced them down.

Lady Hallett: All right, thank you.

Questions From Ms Heaven

Ms Heaven: Thank you.

Good afternoon, Ms Evans, I represent Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru.

The first topic, please, is WhatsApps. So I’m just going to read to you paragraph 40 of your first witness statement, because you obviously did two witness statements. So your first witness statement said:

“I would use WhatsApp or text in my Trefnydd role during plenary to let ministers who were not in chamber know when they had … [Document read] … in a press conference, for example.”

You then – and that statement of course was signed true to the best of your knowledge and belief.

You then provided the Inquiry with a second statement. The first statement was 1 November 2023. Second statement was 15 December 2023, where you change your evidence to the Inquiry in relation to WhatsApps. And here at paragraph 10, I’ll read it again to you, you say that you:

“… used WhatsApps on a personal phone and these comprised messages to my Cabinet colleagues … [Document read] … with support.”

But that you didn’t make decision via informal messaging platforms.

Now, we’ve obviously – I don’t know if you were in the Inquiry when Eluned Morgan gave evidence but we did just look at some WhatsApps between yourself and Eluned Morgan where you’re very clearly asking for clarity on the rules and the guidance. I think we had one on static caravans, we had one on swimming lessons.

I just want to ask you about one or two more, please.

So if we could have INQ000303219, and the first one is at page 15.

So that will just pop up on your screen there. Is it up on your screen?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes.

Ms Heaven: It’s the top of the page. It’s another query from yourself:

“One more question … a socially distanced outdoor concert for 30 people… allowed or not allowed? I think not allowed, but don’t want to be wrong this as it is for charity. As you can see, I am clearing some casework!”

Then if we just turn to page 24, please, for the final one, and it’s at the very bottom. Thank you. Here we have yourself, and it’s 5 October 2020:

“For FM and VG mostly, but following up from Cabinet: Mick is v opposed to debating 16 and 17 tomorrow because it bypasses his [committee] and their opportunity to scrutinise. I do share his concerns about bypassing scrutiny …”

And then you go on, and then Mr Gething says this:

“I think we should say … [Document read] … earlier vote.”

Then he goes on. And then you say in response:

“I agree it’s for the legislature.”

Pausing there, would you agree with me that the first statement you gave to the Inquiry about your use of text messages was wrong and misleading, wasn’t it?

Ms Rebecca Evans: No, I don’t agree with that at all. I would say that I expanded on the evidence that I gave and I would also like it put on record that I have provided the Inquiry with extensive WhatsApp and text messages. What you’re seeing here has absolutely nothing to do with the Covid Inquiry.

Ms Heaven: Just let –

Ms Rebecca Evans: If I may. This relates to the legislature and I think it relates to votes at 16 and 17, so that has nothing to do –

Ms Heaven: You’re making government decisions –

Ms Rebecca Evans: – Covid-19 –

Ms Heaven: You’re making decisions here with Vaughan Gething, aren’t you, on WhatsApp. That’s what that shows. I know it’s not in relation to –

Ms Rebecca Evans: No, that is a discussion, and I say it’s for the legislature, it’s clearly not a matter for the executive, as in us as Welsh Government ministers.

Ms Heaven: But my question that I was – just so you understand what I was putting to you – I appreciate you’ve changed your evidence, you’ve provided a second statement, but what I was suggesting to you was that your first statement was not correct, because you were simply saying that you were only using WhatsApp to send messages to remind people that they had five minutes or of a personal nature. That’s what you said in your first statement. So I’m just simply asking you whether you agree that that first statement was incorrect in terms of what you were in fact using WhatsApp for. And I’ve taken you to some of them, for example you were clearly asking for clarity on regulations, but that doesn’t appear in your first statement, does it?

Ms Rebecca Evans: I expanded in my second statement. And I think what you see, really, is a conscientious member of the Senedd, so just to be clear, we have two completely separate jobs: we’re members of the Senedd and we’re also members of the Welsh Government. We have different offices, we have different staff, different email addresses, different diaries, the whole thing are separate. So I spent hours every day, on top of my government work, working as a member of the Senedd responding to queries from constituents, and what you see a lot of the time is what happens when you’ve got legislation and guidance which is being made at pace, making contact with reality and real people’s lives. And so we had all kinds of queries, so the example which was given previously, which related to swimming lessons, the last sentence wasn’t read out, and the next question was – so the constituent is telling me that swimming is on the curriculum. This should be treated as an education matter rather than a recreation matter.

Ms Heaven: Can I –

Ms Rebecca Evans: Those kind of questions I think are legitimate for a conscientious member of the Senedd to be following up.

Ms Heaven: Well, I think you’ve given your evidence. Can I just move on, finally, to one more topic, please, and it’s your views on face coverings. As you’re aware, Frank Atherton had certain views in relation to face coverings, and it would seem from the WhatsApps that you took a slightly different view. So if I can ask you about one, please.

It’s INQ000316403, and it’s page 45, please.

It’s just at the top, a few lines down, and Lee Waters introduces “Some polling on masks” – there we are – and you say as follows:

“Interesting. For me, one benefit of masks is that … [Document read] … though we can’t see it.”

If I can just ask you about one more entry, please, which is at page 46, and this is part way down, it says:

“Rebecca Evans: Def CP end as we are all … [Document read] … correspondence on this.”

And then if you see a little bit further down, Lesley Griffiths has said:

“Can see you Rebecca. Have … [Document read] … hear the answer.”

So, first of all, what correspondence were you getting, and why weren’t members of the public concerned? And also, were you trying to, on this occasion, or indeed others, put your views forward to Frank about the importance of face coverings?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So, again, this is me operating in my member of the Senedd role, which is separate, in the sense that I’m saying I get a lot of correspondence on it. I would have to go back and check through my records what correspondence I was receiving, but my own view is that – as I’ve said here, is that masks I thought were a really good visual reminder to people. Masks said to people as well that “I care about you”, because, as you remember, masks you wear to protect others rather than yourself, and I thought it was a good visual sign, really, that we could be looking after each other in the community. So I always was on the more cautious end of things when masks were concerned.

Ms Heaven: Okay.

Thank you very much, my Lady.

Thank you.

Lady Hallett: Thank you, Ms Heaven.

Mr Jacobs.

Questions From Mr Jacobs

Mr Jacobs: (Inaudible - microphone not on).

Lady Hallett: Is your microphone on, Mr Jacobs?

Mr Jacobs: – question again –

Lady Hallett: Okay.

Mr Jacobs: – maybe.

Lady Hallett: All right, I think yes, you had better, for the transcript.

Mr Jacobs: Yes.

Ms Evans, an issue on which the TUC and the Wales TUC called for action during the pandemic was for financial support for those needing to self-isolate. The concern was that those on lower incomes and in insecure work in particular would struggle to self-isolate if for two weeks of self-isolation they had no or little income, would struggle to pay for food and rent and so on.

Was that a concern shared by the Welsh Government?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, it was.

Mr Jacobs: The concern in particular was that it particularly impacted lower income, higher risk sectors in which health outcomes were already poorer: those working in food processing plants, cleaners, porters, those in transport, social care and so on. Was that aspect of the concern one shared by the Welsh Government?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes.

Mr Jacobs: Ms Evans, the Welsh Government introduced the self-isolation support payment scheme, didn’t it?

Ms Rebecca Evans: It did, yes.

Mr Jacobs: And that was towards the end of October 2020; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Yes, correct.

Mr Jacobs: That was eight months after self-isolation was first introduced as a key NPI in response to the pandemic. Was that far too late?

Ms Rebecca Evans: I certainly would have wanted to have been able to do that – that sooner, and I’ve been thinking very much about this, and I think that one of the challenges we had at the time was that by the time we got to July we were facing – and you’ll see it in some of the documents I’ve shared with the Inquiry – that we were facing up to £1 billion to £1.5 billion of forecast pressures on the Welsh Government’s budget. That didn’t even include what we might need if there was a second lockdown or if you include extra pressures on Welsh Government resources, for example job losses leading to higher claims on various types of support.

So there were huge pressures at the time, and I remember looking recently at some documents where the – where Welsh Government officials were looking at that £600 million which was announced by the UK Government for infection control in care homes, and I think that that was one area where we were trying to get clarity as to whether or not that included consequential funding for the self-isolation within those care homes as well, so I think it is some – a scheme that we definitely we would have wished to have brought in earlier. I think that it demonstrates one of the tough decisions we had to make, from a financial perspective, in terms of being able to agree to an open-ended financial commitment, which could be significant, when you don’t have the clarity of the budget available to service it.

Mr Jacobs: Ms Evans, clearly significant budgetary pressures, but for those first eight months the additional sums spent on financial support for those in work needing to self-isolate was zero, wasn’t it? Whatever the financial pressures, could it not have been more than that?

Ms Rebecca Evans: I think that, you know, were we to look back and be able to do things again, you know, we could have looked at that – we could have looked at that earlier, that’s definitely fair to say. From a financial management perspective, that would have increased the risk even further. When I say, you know, £1 billion of pressures and up to £1.5 billion of forecast pressures, without even a second lockdown, that is huge. And, you know –

Mr Jacobs: Yes.

Ms Rebecca Evans: – I think that that is really, you know, what we need to be considering as well. So it does demonstrate some of the tough financial choices you have to make in these circumstances.

Mr Jacobs: Would the Barnett guarantee in July 2020 have been an opportunity to take some action on the issue of financial support for self-isolation?

Ms Rebecca Evans: Again, it … I’d go back and think about it. It could have been a point at which we could have done that. But even when we got to July and had that Barnett guarantee we were still well beyond the Barnett guarantee in terms of the funding that was required as well.

Mr Jacobs: Just finally, in the latter part of the pandemic you will recall, I’m sure, that the Welsh Government increased the £500 self-isolation support payment to £750. Can you help us with the rationale for that and was there concern in particular that even a £500 payment wasn’t sufficient to remove the financial barriers to self-isolation?

Ms Rebecca Evans: So it would have been my colleague, the minister with responsibility for social services at the time, who would have been responsible for asking us to increase that funding. But at that point affordability was different, so we had – you know, we had the Barnett guarantee, then we had uplifts to the Barnett guarantee to the point at which we were even carrying money over at the end of the financial year, so affordability is unfortunately always one of the things that we have to think about when we’re looking at supporting different programmes.

Mr Jacobs: I think I’m at my time, thank you very much.

Lady Hallett: Thank you, Mr Jacobs.

Thank you very much indeed, Ms Evans, very grateful for your help.

The Witness: Thank you.

(The witness withdrew)

Lady Hallett: We shall adjourn now until 1.50.

(1.01 pm)

(The short adjournment)

(1.50 pm)

Mr Poole: Could I call Jeremy Miles, please.