2. Ms Jayne Brady
MS JAYNE BRADY (sworn).
Questions From Lead Counsel to the Inquiry for Module 2C
Ms Dobbin: Can I ask you to give your full name to
the Inquiry, please.
Ms Jayne Brady: Jayne Brady.
Lead 2C: I think it’s right, Ms Brady, that you’ve made three
witness statements for the Inquiry, and I think you’ve
got all three of them in front of you. I think the
first one – which you made on behalf of the Executive Office, is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: Ought to be in front of you. Let me just check which date that is. Do you have the date in front of you? Forgive me.
Ms Jayne Brady: 23/02.
Lead 2C: Thank you. Can you confirm that the contents of that statement are true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Ms Jayne Brady: I can.
Lead 2C: Then you made two statements subsequent to that, so the first one, I think, is 21 March 2024?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: And, again, are you content that that statement is true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Ms Jayne Brady: I am, yes.
Lead 2C: Then you made a third statement, on 25 March 2024.
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: Do you have that in front of you?
Ms Jayne Brady: I do.
Lead 2C: You do. Can you confirm that the contents of that statement are true to the best of your knowledge and belief as well?
Ms Jayne Brady: I can, yes.
Lead 2C: The Inquiry’s grateful to you for having made all of those statements. I know you’ll be aware that two of them in particular touch on the issue of informal communications, and I’m going to ask you some questions about that today.
If I can start by asking a little bit, first of all, about your role. It’s right that you’re the head of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland; correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: I am, yes.
Lead 2C: And that you took up that role on 1 September 2021?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct.
Lead 2C: And I think that before that you had a background in – well, you had a varied background, but you’re an engineer by profession and training; is that correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, I am.
Lead 2C: Then you had a number of roles in the private sector?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, that’s correct.
Lead 2C: And I think that, as part of your background, you also had a professional background as part of being advisory groups as well?
Ms Jayne Brady: I have, yes.
Lead 2C: And in 2020 you were appointed to the UK government’s Innovation Expert Group?
Ms Jayne Brady: I was, yes.
Lead 2C: And that you were also the Digital Innovation Commissioner for Belfast City Council as well between 2020 and 2021?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct.
Lead 2C: All right.
Just asking first of all about your role as head of Civil Service, I think in fact your role is somewhat different, is that right, to the role that Sir David had whenever he was the head of the Civil Service?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, I think that’s been referenced a number of times through the Inquiry. My role as head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is different from those in the permanent secretaries in Scotland and in Wales and, indeed, in Whitehall. Whilst I am the head of the Civil Service, I am not the accounting officer, so I do not have the power to direct permanent secretaries, who are the heads of their division in terms of accounting officer provision.
There are nine different legal entities, my Lady, in Northern Ireland, and those each – are each under the direction and control of their minister, and obviously we have, it’s been well versed, a mandatory coalition.
There’s perhaps a couple of other aspects I might reflect on which wasn’t covered, the power to direct wasn’t covered, but there are other elements that are different from the Whitehall model in that –
Lead 2C: I’m just going to stop you, because you’ve gone a bit ahead of me.
Ms Jayne Brady: Okay.
Lead 2C: I think what I wanted to check, and forgive me if it wasn’t clear enough, I think that the role of head of Civil Service changed when you took up the role.
Ms Jayne Brady: Okay.
Lead 2C: Is that correct? So Sir David had a slightly different role to you, and I think that what changed was that a permanent secretary was brought in to the Executive Office, thus meaning that your role was – that you were divested of some of the responsibilities perhaps that Sir David had?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, my apologies.
Lead 2C: I’m sure it was me.
Ms Jayne Brady: No, yes, that’s indeed the case. The permanent secretary before my appointment, Dr Denis McMahon, was appointed in June 2021, just after my appointment was announced, and his role was to be TEO permanent secretary and accounting officer, and I’m aware that he also gave evidence on behalf of TEO at the first stage of the Inquiry process. That was to allow me to focus on the overall departmental responsibility, and indeed looking towards how we can create structures for the transformation of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
Lead 2C: All right, and just so that we’re clear about this in terms of chronology, we know that Sir David left his role in and around, I think it was the end of August or the start of September 2020, and there was no permanent replacement then until you took up your role in 2021; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, during that period Dr Jenny Pyper was appointed as an interim head of the Civil Service, but she wasn’t appointed through a normal civil service Commissioners’ process, she was provided on a secondment from the strategic investment board through that period and I took over from her interim capacity on 1 September 2021.
Lead 2C: It’s obviously very conspicuous that, at a point in time when the pandemic had again reached a peak, so in other words at the end of the summer, right through until December, and I know obviously that the rates of transmission and death continued to go up in January 2021, there was in fact no one in post as head of the Civil Service, and I know that you’ve reflected in your witness statement that you didn’t think – forgive me if I’m putting this too broadly – that that had made a difference. Is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: I can’t obviously speak for events that were before my time. When I came into the office, the ECT group was in operation and it had got into a rhythm and structure and in that perspective, we were then looking towards potential opening up. However, it’s very obvious that in a period of significant volatility within the world and indeed Northern Ireland, where the structures are perhaps more complex than other constitutions, that having that uncertainty, that discontinuity of course must have had an impact in terms of that view. My observation having come in that there were structures in place to deal with that which worked effectively well, but I would acknowledge that not having the implements to build it would not be the ideal conditions of heading into something of this magnitude and challenge.
Lead 2C: One of the roles obviously of the head of Civil Service was to act as a adviser to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. So again just coming back to that period, it might be thought surprising or even alarming that during that specific period from September onwards that there wasn’t actually anyone in that role to provide that sort of advice and guidance to the First Minister and deputy First Minister.
Ms Jayne Brady: I mean, for reference, I wasn’t there in my role, but of course the aspects of advice are critically important. In my view, when I took up the role I was very clear that my view was how we then find a way through this, but I was very marked by the significant impact that I observed coming into the role for those in our more vulnerable communities, so that was a key part of my mission, is actually how we could actually address those, not just – and I think the period the Inquiry’s looking at is towards the February, but I’m very clear within my role currently now is seeing the outworkings of the impact to those communities and actually the potential scarring in those communities as well, so absolutely that joined up strategic advice is really critically and key, not just in navigating that but also providing the frameworks for that recovery phase.
Lead 2C: I think the issue perhaps that I had more in mind was that we’ve obviously seen that there was a particularly difficult period in the autumn of 2020 amongst the Executive Committee; would you have expected the head of the Civil Service to have played some sort of role perhaps in trying to find a way through those difficulties or in providing advice to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister as to how to deal perhaps with divisions that may have developed during that period of time?
Ms Jayne Brady: And again obviously having not been part of those discussions but if I look towards the role that I took in terms of September and moving forward and we did have some of those challenges in terms of Omicron, not just the chief policy adviser to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, also secretary to the Executive, and also have a role as leader of the programme through government, so part of the aspects of advice was, as we went into Omicron, is how can we find a solution regarding navigating this way out which does require engagement with all different parties as secretary to the Executive, so I would have expected that they would have a role, yes.
Lead 2C: So sort of wise counsel –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – in trying to keep people, as it were, I suppose, trying to keep the decision-making on a – keeping it functioning rather than descending perhaps into real tension or difficulty?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes. Yes, I think in my statement I’ve made a reference to the emerging issues with Omicron and –
Lead 2C: Yes.
Ms Jayne Brady: – the discussions that were had, and I guess an awareness that there were going to be more restrictions imposed and to find ways to navigate through that and working with the ministers to try and have a briefing and provide frameworks and environments where that engagement in advance of an Executive could be made aware so that the Executive meetings could be as effective as possible, and also to allow ministers to have the optimum level of time to consider those options given the magnitude of the decisions that they were making.
Lead 2C: I could tell there was frantic activity going on beside me, I’m being asked if you could perhaps speak more slowly.
Ms Jayne Brady: Okay. Northern Irish, apologies, my Lady.
Lady Hallett: Not at all Irish, I’m afraid, I’m English.
Ms Dobbin: Thank you.
If we could move on, then, if we may, just to then ask you then about what happened in terms of the TEO’s response to the Inquiry and indeed the cross-departmental response to the Inquiry.
I hope I can do this without having to take you through all of the documentation, but if at any time you want to see any of it, please stop me –
Ms Jayne Brady: Okay.
Lead 2C: – and I will, I’m just going to refer to some of the correspondence and –
Ms Jayne Brady: Okay.
Lead 2C: – if you agree with me.
When the Inquiry was announced, I think it’s right that on 10 June 2021 the Cabinet Office, through a Mr Tierney, wrote to all permanent secretaries asking that government departments take steps to ensure that their department was ready to meet the requirements of the Inquiry, and to ensure that relevant records were available.
I think, I’m sure that you will have seen this correspondence in preparation.
And that also included, didn’t it, ensuring that no materials of potential relevance were destroyed?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct.
Lead 2C: I know that you weren’t quite in post then, but we understand, and we’ve seen the communication that was sent internally by Ms Pyper on 14 June 2021 – I think you’ve seen that as well –
Ms Jayne Brady: I have seen that as well, yes, I am aware.
Lead 2C: And she forwarded that letter, didn’t she, to all permanent secretaries within Northern Ireland?
Ms Jayne Brady: She did, yeah.
Lead 2C: Drawing their attention to it. And she said in her covering email that that applied just as equally, I think, to the Northern Ireland Civil Service as well –
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct.
Lead 2C: We know then, and we’ve already had – a witness, Mr Stewart, has already been taken to this, but again, I think you’re familiar with it, that he reflected on his experience of taking part in a public inquiry and the minute level of detail that was required in order to respond; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes, I’ve seen that correspondence.
Lead 2C: And in particular he mentioned about the fact that communications would be required by any public inquiry –
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: – and specifically drawing his colleagues’ attention to that?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: I think that when you came into office, then, on 16 September 2021, you also then communicated across government in Northern Ireland and provided guidance on the Inquiry and what might be required as well; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes, I did.
Lead 2C: And I think in fact we can probably go to that guidance just to make it clear – there it goes, it’s there – and we can see, I think, if we go, please, to paragraph 6 of the – sorry, page 6 of the guidance, we can see that the guidance set out – now, first of all, I should say this was published by the Departmental Solicitor’s Office; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: So it was formal legal guidance that had been produced within government, and had that been provided or was it provided to each government department?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, I took up post on the 1st and had discussions with the special advisers to First Minister and deputy First Minister to indicate my intent to do that, so my first week in office I commissioned this advice and briefed permanent secretaries I would be providing it. And on the 16th that was sent with a covering letter from myself to all permanent secretaries asking them to assure themselves, in the same language that Mr Tierney had. I think I’d also referenced that there was an indication of relevance and that they should take the broadest interpretation of relevance in terms of documentation, given the Inquiry had not yet stated.
Further to that, it was also then through – perhaps areas that we will discuss later – the Covid Inquiry, the HOCS reference group, which I communicated, training was provided on this to around 580 individuals across the service, and this document was then circulated to around, I think, 74 individuals across eight departments in the Civil Service from a period of June 2022 up until November the following year. So it was a – not just a one position.
I also then provided this document and briefing note to the First Minister and to the deputy First Minister in November, and then I provided –
Lead 2C: I just want to stop you, because you’re going quite fast and you’ve moved a bit ahead, so before we go any further I just wanted to draw your attention to what was said at the bottom of page 5, and that the document, the guidance, the legal guidance identified that hard copy documents would be of potential relevance, but also then underneath it the guidance foresaw that not just electronic communications like email would be potentially relevant but in fact it identified that informal communications might be relevant as well; correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: Absolutely, yes.
Lead 2C: You’ve said that this was drawn to the attention of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister; was that by you?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, it was. I provided, I think it’s provided to the Inquiry, a covering letter to appraise them of the situation regarding the Inquiry. Obviously at that point Scotland had made an indication that they were going to perform their own inquiry, so I was providing advice as to the structures that we needed to put in place to give assurance to meet the UK Inquiry’s issues, the areas that had been identified, supporting RHI, and then I also provided this as an attachment to that for them, for information at that prospective, yes.
Lead 2C: Obviously you are – in your role as head of the Civil Service, you act as adviser to them, and it was one of the questions I was going to ask: did the responsibility then for informing them about their obligations to the Inquiry, did that fall to you or would that have fallen to someone else within the TEO or within their private office perhaps?
Ms Jayne Brady: That would fall, in terms of their governance, to their accounting officer, who has information governance responsibilities. That would have been the permanent secretaries in each of the departments. And that was why the request was to assure themselves.
I think if you go to just possibly the – the – so the assurance was set, just:
“This process should include contacting key individuals and teams (including Ministers and their Private Office) within the department and instructing them to preserve documents and records that may be relevant to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.”
Lead 2C: I’m going to stop you, just to be clear in terms of what you’re referring to. So that’s just under paragraph 4 and the second paragraph that you’re reading from?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, that’s correct.
Lead 2C: So that’s what I was going to ask you, so that’s the part of the legal guidance that had been set out, was to ensure that there were proper processes within the departments in order to ensure that ministers and their private offices were aware as well; yes?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes. And indeed also then to contact – to make sure that the departmentals’ information management and IT teams and security officers were aware, so that if there was any difference to destruction of documents that those could be considered as well.
Lead 2C: Right. So that was sent, and sent to the – we know, to the deputy First Minister and the First Minister as well, and I think in fact there was also a separate submission to them as well in and around this time also.
Maybe we could just bring that up, and that’s INQ000409671, and if we could go to paragraph 18 of that, please.
So, again, the briefing paper to them, I think, again expressly dealt with the issue of communications; correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: And again reference there, that happens to be particularly about emails, but I think, again, flagging up the importance of ensuring that material was kept for the purposes of the Inquiry; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: All right. And I think then subsequent to that there were – thank you, that can be taken down – further communications then from the Cabinet Office to government in Northern Ireland as well. There were further letters, I think, in February and July of 2022 as well, again reiterating the message that material needed – material of potential relevance needed to be retained, and also there needed to be assurance that material wasn’t destroyed as well; correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, that’s correct.
Lead 2C: In fact you circulated the letter that had been sent in July 2022, again to all Northern Ireland permanent secretaries; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: And you referred earlier to training. I think going by – looking at your statement – I don’t think you need to turn to this – at paragraph 18, you said that there had been virtual training on eight occasions between 7 June 2022 and 12 June 2023 as well?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: Again, the Cabinet Office wrote in October 2022 reiterating again the message not to destroy, and again you referred in your letter to Northern Ireland permanent secretaries to the obligation to retain and not destroy, and I think you forwarded that letter again; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, and just to note that was the day the ministers left, the caretaker ministers left Northern Ireland, was the day I ordered that.
Lead 2C: Yes, so I think the key point maybe here is that ministers had been in post – I know there’s an exception for Baroness Foster, which I’ll come to, but other ministers had obviously received those communications about the importance of retaining data and not destroying; correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, that’s correct.
Lead 2C: So just turning then, and I think there’s a – if I could – just to ensure I’ve covered all of your communications with ministers, I think that there was also a meeting on 14 June 2022, and it may assist if I bring that up so that you can see that.
I’m grateful.
This is the email note of the meeting, but I think, again, we see reference here to informal communications; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes. Perhaps by way of context, these were meetings that I convened after the First Minister and deputy First Minister had stepped down, and there was no longer an Executive. So – however, it was – it was a period of significant global disruption and I was attending UKG meetings on behalf of Northern Ireland, so, particularly with the war in Ukraine, COBR meetings and briefings and dealing with the refugee and asylum seeker provision. So I had facilitated regular meetings with the existing ministers who were still in post in the other eight departments to make sure I was providing factual briefings to them on key issues that I thought their departments should be aware of. So that was the context of that meeting. I’m not sure that all – I think there’s – at the –
Lead 2C: Yes –
Ms Jayne Brady: – not all ministers were present at that meeting, but yes, for those who attended.
Lead 2C: Yes, so the message was reiterated again, and that’s 14 June 2022?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, correct.
Lead 2C: I think not very long after this it’s right that Module 2C of the Inquiry then sent a Rule 9 letter so requesting information, and specifically requesting information from the TEO about the extent to which informal communication was used within the TEO, and specifically asking, for example, about WhatsApp messages and those other types of information. Do you agree?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: So, in other words, at a very early stage in this process, in addition to all of the communications from Cabinet Office that had been filtered through, there was that specific request for evidence in relation to informal communications?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: Just pausing there, if I may, are you satisfied that in terms of the communications that had come originally from Cabinet Office to government in Northern Ireland, that first of all those communications were accurately conveyed to permanent secretaries, in other words that the obligation was made clear to them that they had to retain material and not destroy material?
Ms Jayne Brady: I’m – I am clear that the advice provided was explicit and clear. I think, which you haven’t drawn attention to in my correspondence in the letter, I said that I would provide information to all staff. I considered that – that was my first week in post – and we provided different vehicles to communicate to all staff of the implications, and that was regarding the training and awareness through the oversight framework, the 580 people, that was providing the legal guidance to those individuals within departments. So, in my view, the information provided was clear, it was consistent, it was supported with infrastructure regarding different levels of insight and awareness within those organisations and teams, and it was repeated frequently.
Lead 2C: And in terms of, obviously this was information that was provided to permanent secretaries. In terms of the translation of that information or the provision of that information to ministers, again were you satisfied that that information had been conveyed to ministers and the obligation made clear to them?
Ms Jayne Brady: It’s clear from – when I read the Rule 9 statements that have come from department in terms of the informal communications, it’s not clear to me that in the transition, when they left office, whether that information was provided to them. I have no evidence to show that that was, in terms of it, other than the communication that I have provided.
Lead 2C: I’m going to – I think those are two different things potentially.
Ms Jayne Brady: Okay.
Lead 2C: So let me try and make that distinction clear. At the time these communications were being provided to departments and permanent secretaries about the need to ensure that material was retained, when you came into office were you satisfied that that information was also being conveyed to ministers at the time?
Ms Jayne Brady: I … I asked for assurances from departments in terms of asking them to assure themselves in terms of what was being done. It was my expectation but I do not have confirmation that permanent secretaries advised their ministers of that effect – to that effect, although it was obviously provided in the guidance through that mechanism.
Lead 2C: And that obligation would have fallen on the permanent secretaries?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: That’s who –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – effectively would have had charge of ensuring that that information was provided?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: I’ll put that to one side, because that’s a separate issue from, I think, the issue that you’re going on to, which was what happened when ministers actually left office and that for some of them their devices were wiped by internal – the part of NICS that’s called IT Assist; correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct.
Lead 2C: Perhaps if we leave that and we’ll come to that in the chronology.
Ms Jayne Brady: Okay.
Lead 2C: In terms of how the – this all came to light, and the fact that there had been data loss, I think it’s correct that certainly that was understood within TEO in and/or around 9 May 2023?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, that was, as I understand, advised to the TEO Inquiry team in May 2023, I was not advised of it until in August of that year.
Lead 2C: I’m just going to go, if I may, to the emails about that just so that we can look at those. If we could please – there you go. The email is there. So if we look, please, at page 3 of that, we can see that this was an email sent on 9 May 2023. INQ000409608.
It’s sent from Ms Hannon, and we can see, I think it’s right that Ms Morrow and Ms Griffith were the principal private secretaries –
Ms Jayne Brady: For the First Minister and deputy First Minister.
Lead 2C: On 9 May Ms Hannon appears to understand that those devices, and she’s referring there to both ministerial and special adviser devices, had been wiped. Yes?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, that’s correct.
Lead 2C: So there doesn’t appear to be a question mark, she appears to understand that that has happened; correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: And rather she wants some information about how that had happened; yes?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: And then notes the fact that the Inquiry team would need to be advised –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – that that had happened; yes?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: I think if we go over the page, please, to page 2, we certainly have the confirmation from Ms Griffith, and I think that’s in respect of the First Minister’s office; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s the first – but that would be, I think it was referring to not – the First Minister being Baroness Foster and not Paul Givan.
Lead 2C: Yes, so this specifically, is that right; so Ms Griffith effectively ran the office –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – is that the right way to put it, for Baroness Foster, and she was confirming on 9 May that the devices were all reset some time ago; yes?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: And referring to the fact that that would have been the case when ministers or SpAds left during the mandate, so the same for Baroness Foster, it’s because she left during the time when the arrangements were still up and running; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, that’s correct, however I would note that the First Minister Paul Givan’s phone wasn’t reset when they left, yes.
Lead 2C: Yes, we’ll look at some specifics but that’s certainly what she’s suggesting at this point in time, and I think then the enquiry was also made in respect of the deputy First Minister as well; yes?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: I think if we go up this email chain a little bit, I think we see that on 9 May Ms Griffith is going to confirm whether or not that’s the case, on page 1. Yes?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: It was understood on 9 May that Baroness Foster’s devices had been wiped and the position wasn’t clear at that stage as regards the deputy First Minister; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: Then we know that on 11 May there was then a meeting; correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: And I think it’s fair and right to point out that there is a dispute between people who attended that meeting about precisely what was discussed about the wiping; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: That is correct, yes.
Lead 2C: And that may not be something we can resolve here, but right to mark that –
Ms Jayne Brady: Absolutely, yes.
Lead 2C: – it’s not necessarily accepted by all people who attended precisely what was discussed, but there is a note about the meeting on 11 May; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: In fact, there’s a series of minutes about the meeting of 11 May –
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: If we perhaps look at the first draft of the meeting, and, yes, so the first draft of the minute that was produced, so I think if we call this version 1, reflected that:
“… Former Ministers phones have been wiped as the phones have been returned to a factory reset position. Maria is discussing this issue so that we can inform the Inquiry that all reasonable steps have been taken in relation to this information.”
Yes?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: We know that that note was amended, I think there are 13 different amendments to it, but the final version that we have of it, and it appears on the right-hand side of the screen, is the meeting note of the position of TEO former ministers and SpAd phones; correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yeah.
Lead 2C: Now, just going back to this meeting, this was a meeting of civil servants who were dealing with the response on the part of the TEO to the Inquiry –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – is that correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: So it was only a meeting, thank you, we can see from the top of the page, of civil servants who were involved in the response, correct, and a legal adviser?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: Can you help us with who these minutes were intended for? For whose benefit are they made?
Ms Jayne Brady: They would be minutes as part of those, a three-tiered structure in terms of the Inquiry oversight and assurance group that we had, the HOCS, the HOCS oversight group, which actually the meeting that I was on 9 May and that wasn’t this issue wasn’t raised during that oversight group on 9 May. Then the next level is the compliance and assurance group which this is the meeting that’s referring to and that would have representation from different – different leads across the area and also representation from DSO and it is for compliance and insurance.
And then there is a departmental preparedness group which would be a slightly more junior level within that but also I guess getting that prepared just and cross-cutting. Then it would be a departmental – a TEO departmental group as well. So this was the structures put in place to ensure the co-ordination of this, this would have been one of the groups that worked in terms of the training and advisory which DSO led on.
Lead 2C: Who would these notes have been circulated to outside of the attendees of the meeting?
Ms Jayne Brady: They – to my awareness they’re not, they’re within those attendees of the meeting.
Lead 2C: Would you expect then that these meetings would be circulated to these individuals and then stored?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, I would, yes.
Lead 2C: And the final – the version of the note that we looked at, the abbreviated reference to phones, that’s what would constitute the formal record of the meeting and would be the record that was stored in your internal systems?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, subject to it being agreed at the subsequent meeting and of course you have reference that there is a dispute regarding that. So whether that – that would put in question whether that was an official record of the meeting, but I note it was agreed at the subsequent meeting.
Lead 2C: Insofar as there’s a disagreement about what was discussed, obviously from the final version of that note, one would have no idea that in fact what had been discussed was the potential factory reset –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – of phones?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: So in terms of the rationale for amending the minute so that it omits reference to the factory reset, I think you’re aware that the Inquiry has taken witness statements from the three individuals who were involved in that, I think one of them is quite a junior official –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – and effectively what she and Ms Homes, who was the more senior official, appear to suggest was that it was Ms Homes, the senior official, who decided that the minute should be in a final form that omitted any reference to the factory reset –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – and omitted any reference to telling the Inquiry about it.
Can you help me as to your understanding as to why that was decided or why that was regarded as the right thing to do?
Ms Jayne Brady: In their submissions which they have provided they have indicated that they changed the reference or reduced the reference because, to quote, that they were not aware of the full information and they were seeking to get further information. In my view, it materially changes the substance of the meeting because not just was the information regarding the actual reset not covered but also the point – the action point to inform the Inquiry so in my view didn’t reflect if the metadata was correct the actual content that was discussed during that meeting. So I would not concur with their view that in abridging it, it should cover that, not much was known about the meeting, my view would be that it should qualify, not much was known about it, but this was the initial view that we have of those issues.
Lead 2C: I mean, I think the reality is to anyone reading the note that the fact that the factory reset had been discovered and was known about would be concealed from them; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: I would concur with that view, yes.
Lead 2C: In terms of trying to understand why, why that would happen, the fact that the full facts weren’t known, that’s not a reason not to minute something, is it?
Ms Jayne Brady: No, as I mentioned, Ms Dobbin, I would suggest that if that was the case, my view would be that that should be minuted, that this has been informed, the factual position, and that we’re taking further action to clarify that at that point, I –
Lead 2C: Yes, that’s really what I wanted to check with you.
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: There’s obviously nothing to preclude a minute from referring to the fact that something has been discussed, but that it’s something about which the full facts aren’t known, “It needs to be treated with sensitivity”, for example, “and we’re going to look into this”?
Ms Jayne Brady: I would concur with that. I believe it was a mistake to edit the meeting to that reductive. And indeed, our code of ethics talks about the open and – transparency of record-keeping, and I think that indicates that wasn’t as open and transparent, if that was indeed what was discussed during the meeting, which is contested as well.
Lead 2C: In terms of any concern on the part of those involved in the minutes about who would read it, do you have any understanding of why there might have been concern on their part of not revealing the full picture of what was discussed at the meeting?
Ms Jayne Brady: I don’t have a view, and I guess I raised it wasn’t raised to me until 4 August, and I had a meeting on the 9th of – an oversight meeting, where issues should be flagged to the oversight group, so – for us to deal with those. I would have expected that issue to be flagged at that point, at the earliest possible instance, and for us to take action in terms of informing the Inquiry. I’ve made that clear to the individuals concerned of that approach, and they’ve accepted that.
Lead 2C: I think it’s right, we don’t need to spend too much time on this, but the TEO had a series of meetings with the Inquiry after that date as well and the fact that there had been a factory reset wasn’t referred to, was it?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, that’s correct, that is it.
Lead 2C: I think, as you’ve said, it’s right that you then, you were informed about it on 4 August, and I think you then put in train an investigation into what the extent was of the data loss and in order to ascertain further information about it; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes, I did.
Lead 2C: Can we just check, then, obviously at this stage, I think there are two things to point out, obviously the Inquiry’s request for evidence about the use of WhatsApps which had been made in September 2022, that had never actually been answered by a witness statement, had it?
Ms Jayne Brady: No, it hadn’t, yes.
Lead 2C: And in fact it appears what perhaps what had prompted this information to come to light was because the Inquiry then sent a further Rule 9 request to the TEO on 31 July setting out very specific questions that it wanted answered about the use of informal communications?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, that’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: Just in that intervening period then, between May and August, is it correct then that in fact nothing had been done within TEO to try to investigate or find out what had happened in terms of the data loss during that period of time?
Ms Jayne Brady: As I referenced, I wasn’t aware of that. I understand the permanent secretary was made aware of it when he was giving evidence during the Inquiry. But as far as I could see from the investigation that we commenced in August, no further investigation taken place.
Lead 2C: All right. I think we know, then, and perhaps we can certainly pick this up from your witness statement – that might be the easiest way to pick up what actually happened.
If we could go, please, to INQ000422292, and if we could go to paragraph 127, please.
So I think you have helpfully set out, and I think we can look at it via your statement rather than going to the investigation report, but you set out there the information that was provided, first of all, by the First Minister’s office, and – perhaps if we can we go to the next page, thank you – what’s set out in your statement was – is what in effect happened to each of the devices; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: That had been in the possession or which were being used by a number of ministers –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yeah.
Lead 2C: – at that time.
Now, we don’t have time to go into the precise circumstances of each individual. I’ll come back to the general picture, if I may, in a second, and I think if we could just go over the page to the deputy First Minister, that’s dealt with at paragraph 129, isn’t it?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yeah.
Lead 2C: And I think – thank you.
And I think that it sets out – and I think this is at page 38, please, of the statement, it may just be over the page, thank you.
I think that it sets out that in fact her device, and I’ll come to the specifics, that it had been wiped prior to her returning her devices; is that correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct.
Lead 2C: But I think if I may just generally set out the position in terms of, some ministers, when the power-sharing arrangements ended, returned their devices to their private offices, and private offices sent those devices to IT Assist, and they wiped the devices; correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, it’s fair to say that when the analysis was done there wasn’t a consistent approach in TEO, post – when I was in post, the devices were retained in the private office. Baroness Foster’s device was returned prior to me taking up post, but in the other offices there was a different – differentiated approaches taken.
Lead 2C: I’m just going to take it generally, if I may. So for some ministers they returned their devices to their office, their offices sent them to be wiped. The question of whether or not they had WhatsApps on them or other informal communications and may have deleted them beforehand is a different question and a matter for them, but in terms of the process that happened within TEO, those devices were effectively cleansed or wiped within the Executive – well, within IT Assist, which I think sits within the Department of Finance?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yeah. Actually in TEO the devices were retained in the private office, they were stored, with the exception of Baroness Foster’s –
Lead 2C: Oh, sorry, I understand.
Ms Jayne Brady: – when she stood down. So they were retained so we were able to take those for retention.
In the case of the First Minister’s phone, the PIN was not available and the PINs we were given weren’t able to be interrogated when we provided the search. And in the case of the deputy First Minister’s office, in that case at that time was Michelle O’Neill, the devices had been reset prior to it being returned. But they were retained and they are still available in their current state, they haven’t been reset by IT Assist.
Lead 2C: Will you forgive me, I’m slipping into the mistake of and forgetting that you weren’t responsible for every ministerial phone, you’re only responsible for those who fell within the narrow –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – ambit of the Executive Office –
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct.
Lead 2C: – so the First Minister, the deputy First Minister – the two First Ministers, deputy First Minister, and two junior ministers; is that correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: Okay. And the question of what happened to other ministerial phones is a separate question –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – effectively, because they were dealt with within their own departments and private offices?
Ms Jayne Brady: And I understand other Rule 9 statements also –
Lead 2C: Yes.
All right, so just – but I think we do know, don’t we –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, we do, yes.
Lead 2C: – that a number of those phones were also variously either returned to IT Assist and wiped, or they were wiped or cleansed before they were handed in; is that correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct. And for the purposes of – to assist the Inquiry, given the issues that were raised, that was why I convened a cross-departmental group to have a view, obviously, to – of what had happened to each of those devices, so at least there was information consistently. And the report that I actioned, the internal audit report, covered all devices in the phone – for those phones.
Lead 2C: Well, we won’t go into every device and what happened, I think the important point may be how that happened, given the extent to which, within TEO, you had translated and provided the instructions that had come from Cabinet Office, and given the formal internal legal guidance that had been provided, and given the efforts that had been gone to to ensure that different departments understood what their obligations were. And I put that in a compound way, but I think that the overarching question remains how, despite all of that, did it happen that TEO – or that the processes within government in Northern Ireland meant that when devices were returned they were – a number of them were simply sent to internal IT department and wiped?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yeah, and for me that is an area of, I guess, significant concern, and issues that there wasn’t a consistency of approach, but also that the expectations that were set in the correspondence weren’t delivered, notwithstanding the efforts that had been made.
I think there’s in – the report analyses overall the kind of various different points that there were from that perspective. If you take the overall, the governance perspective sits with the permanent secretary through the information, kind of, owner and asset owner, and the obligation to inform, then, private office staff and the various checks and balances that were made.
I think overall, from the awareness of the Rule 9 responses that came from departments, there seemed to be a gap between my understanding of official information and the understanding of official information and official records, and official records being the official record that was held in the system in terms of Content Manager, but my understanding, which I think is correct under the Inquiries Act, that official information is all information, and, in the same sense as a FOI, is all information with the caveats of those which don’t have to be disclosed for particular reasons. And I think that that was a disconnect in terms of their perception of what met the requirements of disclosure, that it wasn’t correctly all official information. And I think that’s been characteristic of the engagement that we would have had, very regrettably, with the Inquiry in terms of the fulsomeness of the information that has been provided, which to me was very clear – and coming into post, was very clear, in the information provided, but did not appear to be clear in terms of how that was given effect to within the departments. And I guess if we look towards the report that was done, it analyses kind of policies in one context and another context. So if a device is returned to IT Assist, it should be reset, but there should have been a decision made not to reset that because we were in a special environment.
Had private offices been advised of the implications in terms of those areas, had sufficient kind of assurances been got in terms of retention policies? What was given effect, broadly, across departments was that there was a hold on deletion in terms of Content Manager, which is the official record, but, however, it is my understanding that, rightly, that the Inquiry would want all official information, in whatever channel that was provided.
And I guess also the obligations, there was requirements on both ministers and SpAds, and indeed officials, that notwithstanding whatever channels they used, that it should be kept and be available for FOI, which in turn makes it available. So there was an obligation on all actors in this to provide that in terms of the system and to disclose that which is included in the Ministerial Code and the guidance of their office and the special advisers’ code and handling information.
Lead 2C: I think there’s probably bound up in that a number of different issues. As I understand what you’re saying, you’re referring to official information. I think the Inquiry just looks at information. But I think what you’re suggesting is that there was a fundamental misunderstanding as to whether or not informal communications would fall within the definition of that which was required by the Inquiry?
Ms Jayne Brady: I think there was, it was possibly not the informal communications, it was the nature of the information within that. And I think there was a view that that was regarding decision-making and the formal record versus everything that is pertinent to the work of governance, I guess the context for a decision, and certainly some of the information which has been disclosed here. I would say that vast swathes – we – I think we have provided 270 strings of information from the Executive Office. We provided all my messaging, all the senior civil servants have provided that information, and indeed some ministers have provided that information at all. I think what this – the system failed to look at the collective responsibility as part of that to give effect to the legal guidance.
Lead 2C: I think that that probably trespasses, as it were, into a distinct issue as to whether or not what’s contained in informal communications is relevant, but I think what’s clear is that it wasn’t as though there was any analysis or consideration of what might be relevant or not, the devices were being wiped wholesale without anyone addressing whether or not there might be any relevant material.
Ms Jayne Brady: I have seen no evidence provided within departments that there was a question to confirm that all information on those devices was in the – was provided on to Content Manager on the public record. Perhaps – that’s my understanding.
Lead 2C: Yes, I’ll come back, because I think we probably just need to make sure that we are clear on our understanding of that?
Lady Hallett: Can I just follow your answer there, Ms Brady. No evidence that anybody did check that they were deleting what might be relevant information, is that what you said, or do you say the opposite?
Ms Jayne Brady: I haven’t seen any evidence in terms of the Rule 9 statements that have been provided that there was confirmatory from ministers when they handed back their phone that all information that was on the system.
Lady Hallett: Had it been recorded elsewhere?
Ms Jayne Brady: No, that would be their requirement to do that under their ministerial code of ethics in terms of providing information and also the – their guidance which they – took place in May – in March 2020 when they took up office as well as special advisers.
Lady Hallett: So they were wiped without anyone checking that the material had been recorded elsewhere?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s my understanding, yes.
Lady Hallett: Thank you.
Ms Dobbin: Yes, and to be clear, these aren’t just phones, are they, I think they’re iPads as well, so – and I wanted to ask you about that. I think some of these devices must have had emails on them as well, it’s not just text messages or informal communications; is that correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: I’m not aware of – I mean, if it was an email, that would be on the system as well.
Lead 2C: That’s what to –
Ms Jayne Brady: There would be tensions –
Lead 2C: We can see whenever we look at emails from senior civil servants and ministers that some of them have trim at the top of them?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: And that’s what indicates that that has been retained within your centralised –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, yes.
Lead 2C: – system?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct.
Lead 2C: So not every email, just to be clear about this, automatically gets committed, does it, to a central record, it has to be, is it forwarded on or –
Ms Jayne Brady: That would be for the private office so the information asset owners would make a decision on what information should be provided and trimmed. We have a system called Content Manager which keeps the records, the official records and then we have a system called KnowledgeNetwork which records decisions in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Ministers. All decisions must be made jointly so there is a significant process in terms of capturing those in decision-making so that would be the responsibility of the private office to facilitate and put all those systems within that official record.
Lead 2C: So it’s a conscious and deliberate decision –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – I’m going to make sure this email is committed to our central systems?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: In terms of then the position about informal communications, I think it’s right that guidance within government in Northern Ireland did recognise that informal communications could in fact constitute information that should be retained as well; is that right?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes –
Lead 2C: Sorry, just there’s two parts to this question, and that that was generally – that was the position before 2020, it’s not a new position?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: I think if we, and I wouldn’t – I would quite like to just check that I have the document correct that conveys that. That’s INQ000398064.
(Pause)
Lead 2C: So although this is a Department of Finance document, I think the Inquiry’s been provided with it by a number of departments.
Ms Jayne Brady: Okay.
Lead 2C: I think we understand that it was in circulation in 2019, but you may know –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yeah.
Lead 2C: You may be able to confirm that.
It foresees, or the premise of it is it understands that official information may nonetheless be obtained within informal communications –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: And it expressly refers to –
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: – WhatsApps.
Certainly, and this is a very simple guide, isn’t it, it’s not complicated?
Ms Jayne Brady: No, absolutely, no, yes.
Lead 2C: That must be right, that it’s understood that it doesn’t – the medium through which you communicate doesn’t really matter, it’s the content of the, of what you’re communicating that ultimately makes it official information which should be subject to proper recording?
Ms Jayne Brady: Absolutely, yes.
Lead 2C: I think as well again if we can just look at some of your – the policies that existed at the time, there’s another policy, the NICS records management policy, and that’s INQ000409746, and I think if we could look at page 4, thank you, and I think the scope of it is helpful, because it says that it applies to the management of all documents and records in all formats or media created or received by NICS departments in the conduct of their business activities?
Ms Jayne Brady: Absolutely, yes.
Lead 2C: So I don’t think there’s any suggestion that Northern Ireland’s behind the curve in any way of understanding the potential importance of informal communications prior to the pandemic?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: Then also if I may take you to another piece of guidance and that’s INQ000409674. Now, this is later, this is June 2022. But again if we look at section 8 of that, please, so again setting out that officials – in fact you might be able to help me on this. Is this intended to apply to ministers?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: And this was to everyone, to special advisers and ministers?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: That you should try and ensure that all official information is saved on to corporate systems; yes?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: And then I think it’s probably important the recognition that conversations that are held informally can quite easily drift into official matters, and the specific example that’s given there is talking about a social event that then becomes a discussion about official business; yes?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: And then making sure – and again it’s very clear, isn’t it, at that point in time it becomes a matter of official business, so therefore you should be treating it as such; yes?
Ms Jayne Brady: That’s correct, yes.
Lead 2C: Thank you, that can come down.
If I can just ask you about that, that doesn’t set – it doesn’t really set any sort of threshold for what is official business as such?
Ms Jayne Brady: No.
Lead 2C: It recognises a very clear delineation, doesn’t it, between conversation, informal communication about social events on the one hand and something that is to do with business, and that is sufficient to move it into the official business categorisation; correct?
Ms Jayne Brady: And indeed and we’re all under the FOI obligations which meet the same test, yes.
Lead 2C: I don’t know if you’ve looked at any of the WhatsApp communications that the Inquiry has from Northern Ireland, but in large part they do appear to discuss official business, don’t they?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes.
Lead 2C: There’s a little bit of social chat in them, but in fact in large part they’re not discussing those sorts of things, they’re very firmly on the business side, aren’t they?
Some individuals have suggested that they just used WhatsApps for administrative matters, but again when one looks at some of the discussion, it’s quite clear again that if administrative means fixing up meetings or that kind of thing, they go well beyond that as well, don’t they?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, they do, that’s correct.
Lead 2C: And I think we’ve seen ministerial discussions also by WhatsApp and again it’s right to say, isn’t it, they’re very firmly on the business side of discussions rather than on any sort of social side?
Ms Jayne Brady: The ones I’m aware of, yes.
Lead 2C: And they’re not administrative either, they’re well beyond fixing up meetings as well; do you agree?
Ms Jayne Brady: From the ones I’ve observed, yes.
Lead 2C: We haven’t seen any evidence, but perhaps you can assist us, that those kind of communications were being trimmed, I think is the term that you use whenever they’re committed to your official record, is that your understanding?
Ms Jayne Brady: I haven’t seen the specific information, I think contemporaneously with that at the same time there was guidance placed on our intranet to provide vehicles for downloading WhatsApps to be placed in terms of the formal record in terms of Content Manager, I’m aware of individuals talking that they are referring to having done that but I don’t know at what scale it is within the organisation.
Lead 2C: I mean, in terms of how official business is conducted, I mean, as a generality it’s obviously important, isn’t it, that these kind of discussions are captured and committed somewhere because even just setting to one side that they fall on the official side of things, they may be discussing matters of import as well; do you agree?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes I – yes, I agree.
Lead 2C: I think when one looks at the communications about Covid and the response to the pandemic that we can see in some of the WhatsApps, it would be difficult to characterise them as irrelevant or meaningless; they are substantive discussion in some parts, aren’t they?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yes, I concur it’s a significant issue that we have failed to address adequately through this Inquiry providing this but also more broadly under the obligations under the FOI.
Lead 2C: I think it’s just focusing – it’s just moving beyond the issue of the Inquiry I think there’s the broader principled issue about ensuring that government business is conducted in an appropriate forum first, and there must be issues as to whether or not WhatsApp is always an appropriate forum, but if those discussions take place that there is proper recording and commitment of them to memory as well?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yeah and my view in terms of those areas that we provide I guess much flexibility in terms of the scale of doing that we have since provided technology solutions that actually have our messaging system within them (inaudible) that client which does not require users to manually upload those systems to provide a framework where you don’t have to look towards assurance of individuals to make sure they’re providing those solutions online and part of that was the – I guess we also were explicit in excluding the use of personal devices and I think those are a significant vulnerability and we define exceptional circumstances you can use for non-official communications channels. And I think that’s an issue as well so I think what this has shone a light in is all the vulnerabilities within the system. You’ve identified many different reports and policies but actually all of them have shown to have failed in this scenario to get the information and I think that’s of deep regret for the service for Northern Ireland, but also to get the information for the bereaved families and the information that they deserve for the learnings of that and it is a matter of deep regret. I think some of it is technology, or technology and service has been very slow, Content Manager is a 20-year old platform built for paper records. We have no document management system, so everyone trims into that document and actually we have we had no secure client in terms of 365 or areas to provide cloud storage. We have moved on from a technology perspective. We have now a secure client where all information is within that but I think there’s a bigger journey in terms of the cultural aspects that we need in terms of the openness, these issues were issued in RHI. The guidance, as you stated, although complex is also clear and we have still the same issues that we’re dealing with now which is a matter of regret. I welcome that we’re hearing it now because it shows the journey that we still need to travel but these were identified through the RHI analysis both in record-keeping and the culture of openness and transparency were those two big factors.
Ms Dobbin: I think that might be –
Lady Hallett: Certainly.
Ms Dobbin: – a good moment.
Lady Hallett: We will take a break. Quarter past.
Ms Dobbin: I’m grateful, my Lady.
(3.00 pm)
(A short break)
(3.15 pm)
Lady Hallett: Ms Dobbin.
Ms Dobbin: Before the adjournment, you had mentioned the fact that it was recognised that there was a need perhaps for better governance in respect of informal communications. I think one of the things that’s conspicuous is that departments seemed to have their own guidance as well, so there’s a profusion of guidance and it’s not – it doesn’t appear to be always the same between different departments as well.
Is that something that’s been addressed in terms of having unified guidance that applies across the board?
Ms Jayne Brady: I think it was covered previously in the Inquiry, the different constitutional matter of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, my inability to direct permanent secretaries. But also the Department of Finance is not just the Department of Finance, it’s also the department of personnel and the department for shared IT services. So the code of ethics is defined in a different department by the finance minister. So whilst they provide some of those framework documents, called the NICS frameworks, and that’s within the finance minister’s purview. Each department, because it is a separate legal entity, has developed its own policies which, in my view, (inaudible) out to be fragmented and inconsistent, and requires a level of – an inability to have a co-ordinated approach where there are coo-ordinated aspects of those areas.
One area that we have looked to address that in the last number of years is to provide a consistent technology platform. We talked about – I talked about Microsoft Office 365 which has now been rolled out to 27,000 civil servants across the service, and it’s within a secure client-based – it’s a cloud-based network, so provides a consistency, because those applications are managed centrally, so our video sharing, our messaging system is included with those areas, so with tools we can do that.
However, the practice that we talk about the information governance at the moment, that resides constitutionally with each department, so the permanent secretary is the accountable for information governance. What we’re trying to do to make the system work more appropriately is to have an information governance forum which would have those senior information officers collectively, and indeed we’re going to bring a recommendation to our Civil Service board that we can provide some overlay and insights into that.
However, as civil servants, we cannot impact the constitutional nature, which has the different legal accountability which is rightly in place as part of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
Lead 2C: It might be seen as surprising that that should be an obstruction to just having clear universal policies that apply across each department.
Ms Jayne Brady: Well, in some senses it’s a framework of which there is compliance. There will be specific different requirements within each department. For example, the retention policies in a very large organisation perhaps which has people who are providing road maintenance or other more manual services different from a different type of office. So in the retention policies and the schedules that are kept there is an ability for nuance, but I do agree that in the overall framework there is a significant opportunity for consistency in application.
Lead 2C: I’m moving on now to the final topic, if I may.
The Inquiry heard this morning about the fact that there were specific minutes that had been sought from the Executive Office, and that repeated requests were made for them, and that those requests went unanswered, and that it wasn’t until the fact that that minute hadn’t been provided was opened at the start of the Inquiry that the minute was provided.
If that’s looked at, for example, in relation to the fact that the wiping of the devices or the reset of the devices was excised from the minutes of the meeting on 9 May, that might give the impression that there is an issue that if there is something difficult or something that’s potentially embarrassing, that that is – that, rather than being transparent about it or open, that steps are taken perhaps not to reveal, in the hope that maybe the issue will go away. That’s certainly the impression that might be given.
Do you have any view on that and whether there is a wider issue potentially within TEO around those sorts of issues?
Ms Jayne Brady: I can see how the pattern of events compounds to draw those characteristics, on that specific issue. For me there are three particular areas of concern. First is when the disclosure happened, why were not all items disclosed, not just the formal minutes, but actually the handwritten minutes as well, which is that first aspect, which is a concern about what was the understanding of the areas to be disclosed.
The second piece, which is, I guess, inexplicable is why was the full set of available notes not provided and why were some lost as part of those areas?
And then the third aspect is, when that was found and identified, why did it take so long for each of those steps, as you outlined this morning, for that to become aware, and when it was provided why was it not correctly handled.
And each of those are very significant issues and concerns for me. They’re both inexplicable, I heard of those dates in correspondence today. I was unaware of the lack of disclosure of that item until you addressed that on Tuesday and I heard again of those dates today. So the lateness of information coming even within the service, notwithstanding the lack of – lack of issues addressed, I’ve asked – following this correspondence, I have – DSO to undertake an investigation in terms of what has happened in that specific case.
But I think overlaying of this there will be many questions which will have to be asked about the late providing of information, the rationale why that was provided late, and how this builds into the overall perspective of what we’re trying to achieve in fulfilling our objectives, our commitments in the code of ethics in terms of openness and transparency, and there are many areas of concern that have been raised through this process as well.
Ms Dobbin: I’m grateful.
My Lady, those were my questions.
Questions From the Chair
Lady Hallett: Can I ask, Ms Brady, that any report of the investigation that you respond to me with the answers to the questions you’ve raised, because, as I said this morning, I find it of quite considerable concern, as you can imagine. It’s not just this module, it’s other modules to come, and I need to ensure that I get all the material that I need, and when the team need it and when the core participants need it. Everyone needs it in reasonable time.
So would you mind giving me an undertaking that you will keep me informed as to what happens to your investigation?
Ms Jayne Brady: My Lady, I apologise. I, in the briefing, have advised that that would be for your purposes as well, to assist that inquiry as well, so of course we will keep you engaged. And perhaps even, if you were so minded, in terms of the terms of reference, for that assessment as well.
Lady Hallett: Thank you very much.
Can I ask you a question, and I’ve got to be careful here I don’t tread on sensitive toes, and it’s a question of having the separate departments for the Civil Service and not having, as I’m used to in London, the overall – and indeed they have in Wales and Scotland.
You mention in your statement that the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee recommended that you had a similar system to Scotland and Wales and, not stepping on toes, I hope, but I can see the sense of that. Given that I probably shouldn’t be going down what should happen in Northern Ireland in ordinary times, what about in a national emergency? Can you see any scope for saying that to ensure that in a national emergency, when people are suffering and dying, all the departments work together, and you as head of the Civil Service could ensure that all the information coming from them, everything is properly synthesised and properly presented to ministers? Do you think there’s any scope for that kind of recommendation?
Ms Jayne Brady: Yeah, I think there is an inherent vulnerability in our system in the lack of that accountability. We talked about the Executive with ministers and the areas to come to cross which are significant and cross-cutting, or via the Executive Committee. There is no corollary in the Civil Service. So Ms Dobbin made the very clear point: why is there no consistency? That is an absolutely clear position. And whilst I live within my constitutional confines, what I can do – because it is not okay for me to say to citizens “This is just too hard, this is the constituency that we’re in” – I and Civil Service board provided independent, non-Executive – create those structures. And also, through the reflections, particularly when we have had no government on how we would run and operate Northern Ireland, we’re working through the civil contingencies framework. And I believe, and it’s part of my evidence, that we can actually provide a framework. When we go into a civil contingencies, information governance should be a critical core aspect of that. Because notwithstanding the meetings and the minutes and the WhatsApps, there’s a – handwritten notes of things as you operate with civil contingencies, and that should be designed in upfront and it should be able to be directed.
So I think there is a real clear area. Not in everything, because departments have their own primacy, but in areas where there needs to be significant cross-cutting I think it’s inherent vulnerability command and control works, you need that stability in a civil contingencies environment, and it is a vulnerability in our system.
Lady Hallett: You need somebody who, I don’t know, can co-ordinate and has the power to control – as the First Minister and the deputy First Minister were complaining, they didn’t – there they were, faced with a national emergency, and there they were at the top of government but they don’t have the power to control departments.
Ms Jayne Brady: They have no power to control departments. The – that is vested. It’s only those significant controversial and cross-cutting. And I guess the very valid point, in that the public expect the Civil Service to deliver on those core aspects to support those executives. However, without the power to mandate them to do areas, you know, there is areas of conflict, so even in procurement of the report we had to get assurances within that and convince it’s all soft power, and soft power often doesn’t work in very difficult environments.
Lady Hallett: Thank you very much.
Those are all the questions I had. I don’t think anybody else had any questions, did they?
Thank you very much, Ms Brady, I’m grateful to you.
The Witness: Thank you.
(The witness withdrew)
Lady Hallett: Right. Well, I think that completes – whereas I thought we were going to have a long day today, I think that completes it somewhat early, but I’m very grateful to everybody for the timing.
It’s 10 o’clock Tuesday morning?
Ms Dobbin: You’re right, it is. Thank you, my Lady.
Lady Hallett: I hope everyone gets as good a weekend as they can. Thank you.
(3.30 pm)
(The hearing adjourned until 10 am on Tuesday, 7 May 2024)