Transcript of Module 2C Public Hearing on 16 May 2024

(10.00 am)

Lady Hallett: Mr Scott.

Mr Scott: Good morning, my Lady. May I call Sue Gray.

Lady Hallett: Ms Gray, I understand you have come specially to help the Inquiry, and I’m very grateful for your commitment; I appreciate how busy you must be at the moment.

The Witness: Thank you very much.

1. Ms Sue Gray

MS SUE GRAY (affirmed).

Questions From Counsel to the Inquiry

Mr Scott: Good morning, Ms Gray.

You provided the Inquiry with a witness statement that’s dated 19 March. Please ignore the date in the top right corner. It’s there on the screen, INQ000449439.

And if we can go to page 25, please, there’s your signature and there’s a statement of truth there, and that’s dated 19 March 2024.

As far as you’re aware, are the contents of that statement true?

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: And are you content to rely on that statement in evidence to the Inquiry?

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: If I can just run through your background, briefly. So as at April 2018 you were a director general, propriety and ethics, in the Cabinet Office. Prior to that, how long had you been working in the Civil Service?

Ms Sue Gray: I’d probably been in the Civil Service for about 35 years.

Counsel Inquiry: In April 2018 you then took up the post as permanent secretary to the Department of Finance on secondment?

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: And then you left that post in May 2021, to take up the role of second permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office, with a responsibility for the Union and Constitutional Directorate?

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: As far as the Inquiry’s aware, you are the only civil servant who had experience, at a senior level, both in Stormont and in Westminster during the course of the pandemic?

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: So it’s that aspect that we’re particularly keen to focus on today and your ability to bring to bear your knowledge and experience of how both systems operate.

If I could start, please, with collective responsibility and your assessment of how collective responsibility operates in Northern Ireland compared to how it operates in Westminster.

Ms Sue Gray: Okay, thank you. I think it is very different. In the UK Government, the Prime Minister issues a Ministerial Code to his ministers, and in that Ministerial Code there was a very clear – a whole section, actually, on collective responsibility. It sets out very clear what is expected of ministers. That, you know, when they go to meetings they have an opportunity to be free and frank in those Cabinet discussions and Cabinet committees, but obviously those discussions stay private and whatever decisions are taken, you know, you roll in behind them. There are very clear processes about clearance of papers for those committees, and also about making announcements.

And that is very different to Northern Ireland where, although you have a Ministerial Code and you have the Pledge of Office, but actually it doesn’t talk about collective responsibility, so they’re quite different.

Counsel Inquiry: So in Northern Ireland, part of the Ministerial Code is to support and to act in accordance with all decisions of the Executive Committee and the Assembly. That would tend to suggest that after a decision has been taken, the ministers need to have some semblance of collective responsibility for those decisions; would you agree with that?

Ms Sue Gray: I do agree with that.

Counsel Inquiry: And it doesn’t appear that there is any equivalent sense of collective responsibility before a decision has been taken, so if ministers want to express a different view in public they’re free to do so; would you agree that that seems to be the approach to the Ministerial Code?

Ms Sue Gray: Yes, because it’s not specific.

Counsel Inquiry: Is the situation different, then, before a cabinet decision would be taken in Westminster?

Ms Sue Gray: No – well, obviously I’m not going to say that everything is perfect there, but, you know, there is – people do respect the process, and cabinet – you know, often issues get resolved in cabinet committees, not always at cabinet, but, you know, you don’t read about – you occasionally read about differences of views, but there tends to be a certain discipline.

Counsel Inquiry: Part of the different features of Northern Ireland is the power-sharing arrangement –

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: – compared to Westminster with the –

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: – government of the day. It’s right that you have had experience of working within the Cabinet Office when there was a coalition.

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: What was your experience of how collective responsibility worked in a coalition setting?

Ms Sue Gray: So I was in Cabinet Office between 2010 and 2015 for the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, and in fact I was in Cabinet Office just before that, so whenever the – you know, part of the discussions to form a coalition government in – there was, like, five days in May – part of those discussions was to agree how the two parties would work. And actually the Ministerial Code from that time – I haven’t got it with me, but I think from that time – set out a process for collective responsibility within a coalition government, and actually provided for a process which was called something like – where you – where collective responsibility had to be set aside, because, you know, the two parties were not going to agree, and there was a – it was made clear that that would be exceptional.

Sorry, I can’t actually remember the whole words, but it was from that Ministerial Code in that period.

That process would be exceptional and that there was a process. So if the two parties were not going to agree, there was a special meeting and, you know, the Cabinet Secretary would be part of that meeting, and the process would be set out so that, I suppose, in a way, the two parties were encouraged to reach agreement when they could, which was the norm, which was the main, but where there was an exceptional issue where they were going to be – take different views, there was a process for that, and then they would be allowed to talk about their different positions.

Counsel Inquiry: So when you say they’re allowed to talk about their decisions, you mean in public?

Ms Sue Gray: In public and in Parliament. And I – you know, there was a particular instance, and I can’t remember either, sorry, what it was –

Counsel Inquiry: It’s not a memory test, Ms Gray, don’t worry about specifics.

Ms Sue Gray: But they both, both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, took different positions, and they both, quite unusually, made statements in Parliament on whatever that issue was. So there was a very clear process, but it was not something that was taken lightly.

Counsel Inquiry: As part of those competing statements, for example, did that lead to any breakdown in trust between them?

Ms Sue Gray: No, actually, I think as – you know, they demonstrated, I think, great leadership in how they handled those issues, didn’t break down in trust because actually it was a very honest and open and frank process.

Counsel Inquiry: As far as you’re concerned, in terms of all the provisions of the Ministerial Code, whether any additions, there’s no reason why a system like that couldn’t operate in Northern Ireland?

Ms Sue Gray: I’d like to think it could. I don’t know whether five-party – you know, when I was here I was in a five party work – you know, it was a five-party coalition. And, you know, we had tested it in two parties, two large parties, we had tested it, with very different views on certain issues. Whether five parties, you know – but I would like to think that you could set down a process similar to that.

The very rigour of having to produce a paper, you know, in the Cabinet Office to record the differing views and that balancing of options, I think – you know, it was a very helpful process.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Just also in terms of the Ministerial Code, my Lady asked the experts on Monday that leaking by ministers would be a breach of the Ministerial Code. Do you agree with that?

Ms Sue Gray: I … I think, you know, I think a lot depends on the severity of the leak, but I think if it is a serious leak then, yes, I think there would be a breach of whether it’s the Ministerial Code, the special adviser code or the Civil Service Code, depending on where it would come from.

Counsel Inquiry: Sir David Sterling, in his evidence, said to the effect of if somebody really wants to leak there’s not much you can do to stop them. Again, would that be something that you would agree with?

Ms Sue Gray: I think if somebody wants to leak, unfortunately I think they may find a way, but I think you have to set a culture, I think you have to set some processes. So another difference would be in – you know, for the Cabinet, and actually for a number of other meetings in UK Government, you don’t bring phones into the room, you know, you are made to leave your phones outside.

And personally I think that’s, you know, a helpful thing. I think it makes people focus on the actual discussion that they’re having. But also, you know, it is quite easy, I think, if you’re in a meeting and you’ve got your phone – you know, people could find it easy to, sort of, like, record what is happening, whereas actually if there are no phones …

It’s also from a security point of view as well: if you’re in sensitive discussions, you know, it is best to leave the phones outside.

Counsel Inquiry: And obviously –

Lady Hallett: Sorry, just before you go on, Mr Scott.

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Lady Hallett: Can I just emphasise that when I’ve been asking questions about leaking, I am not trying to clamp down on legitimate whistleblowers.

Ms Sue Gray: No, no.

Lady Hallett: I am talking about people leaking basically for political advantage.

Ms Sue Gray: Yes, and actually sometimes I think leaking to actually try either – and make sure people know what your point is that you’ve made or that you’re trying to steer – you know, you are trying to get – to influence that discussion. No, I appreciate that.

Lady Hallett: But on any view, it must surely be breaching something to –

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Lady Hallett: – stream live a meeting of what would be the cabinet committee – the cabinet –

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah, I think that would be a terrible thing, and it would be seen for that.

And, you know, the other issue in UK Government is that there is an Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, it’s called ministers’ interests, but actually they – you know, that person will often be asked to do an independent investigation if there is an allegation of a breach of the Ministerial Code. And there isn’t anything like that here, I don’t think. That may have changed since I’ve left.

Mr Scott: In terms of – we’ve heard about leak enquiries for example, how effective would it be to conduct a leak enquiry as opposed to, as you just were outlining, an independent figure who would be able to have some kind of oversight and overview? Are the two processes comparable or are there benefits of either?

Ms Sue Gray: So when I was here, I was asked to conduct a leak investigation. I think it related to some messages from somebody’s phone, which I think a journalist – I can’t remember the exact detail – had recovered or had seen those messages. You know, what you can do is you can – obviously, if it’s an official phone, you can check the official phone records to see if there – you know, if calls were made or, you know, around that time, you can obviously check any messages that they’ve also sent. And obviously on a personal phone you don’t have that opportunity.

And I think on the investigation we did, we used all of our internal resources to try to identify what had happened, but I think that sometimes an independent investigation, actually just the nature of an independent investigation can be fruitful.

Counsel Inquiry: Because one word that you said about leaking was about “culture”.

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: Who would set that culture about how ministers should behave in terms of approaching leaks and other issues?

Ms Sue Gray: So personally I think, you know, leadership comes from the top and I think – you know, so it’s the leadership, but I think also ministers are part of that leadership, so, you know, it’s hard to see why they would, you know, think that would be okay.

Counsel Inquiry: If I can then move to direction of civil servants.

So we’ve heard that there’s no power of the head of the Civil Service to direct any civil servant to perform a task in Northern Ireland. Does that cause you, in your experience of being a permanent secretary – did that cause you difficulties at times, that there was no, effectively, oversight of the entirety of the Civil Service about where resources should be allocated?

Ms Sue Gray: It is a very – obviously it’s a very different system here. You – you know, and I understand why that is, respecting all the various, you know, agreements and statute. But you very much, you know, the Civil Service Code which would have applied to me here in Northern Ireland was very much about me supporting the minister that I worked for, whereas in, actually, the UK Civil Service you support the government of the day, and –

Counsel Inquiry: Just –

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: – to come in on that because your statement says to support ministers in –

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: – developing and implementing the policies. Isn’t the Civil Service Code actually to support ministers and the Executive as a whole in developing those policies? It’s wider than just the minister?

Ms Sue Gray: I don’t know whether that version of the code was in place at the time I was here.

Counsel Inquiry: Right.

Ms Sue Gray: I think that may have been, I can’t remember quite rightly, but I think we had – you know, following the RHI report, I think we had an updated – there was probably work done on an updated code, so I think when I was here I think it was supporting the minister.

Counsel Inquiry: Okay. But that addition of supporting the Executive would mean that there is that look to supporting the global approach –

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: – of the government?

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah, I think that would be the intention and we had it in the UK Government, not in the Civil Service Code because that is very clear, but actually in the special adviser code, it was a form of words that we introduced in the coalition years, actually, about supporting the government as a whole.

Counsel Inquiry: Because whatever department, whatever job, whatever role civil servants perform, whatever political party their minister may be a part of, civil servants in Northern Ireland are obliged to act in an apolitical way?

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: And so they’d be supporting ministers whatever their department, whatever their role as well?

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: So why would it be problematic for the head of the Civil Service to have the ability to direct civil servants to perform a task or fulfil a role subject to any oversight from any ministers who were in place in terms of the democratic accountability?

Ms Sue Gray: I’m not sure, I mean, it just isn’t the way or it wasn’t the way that it worked here. The head of the Civil Service, you know, I think – you know, for example, would have chaired the NICS board, that actually, you know – where, you know, individual departments, if they had differences of views, it wasn’t – it just wasn’t a factor that the head of the Civil Service, you know, overrode those decisions or –

Counsel Inquiry: Yes, it may be the way that it wasn’t done –

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: – just in terms of your experience –

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah –

Counsel Inquiry: – of it working in Westminster –

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah, yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: It is beneficial to have the ability to direct –

Ms Sue Gray: Yes. And actually in Westminster that happens. You know, it is not unusual for the Cabinet Secretary, so, you know, to call together relevant permanent secretaries if there’s an issue to be discussed or to be resolved. That is a proper role for the Cabinet Secretary to get those permanent secretaries in the room to talk about whatever the issue is and to try to get matters agreed and resolved, and, if necessary, would actually, you know, take a view about a particular priority.

Counsel Inquiry: So then I come back to the question I had: would there be a problem – and if you can’t answer this without thinking more about it, then please do say – can you foresee any problem of, in Northern Ireland, the head of the Civil Service having the power to direct civil servants to perform a task or fulfil a role subject to the agreement of any relevant ministers that would apply at that time?

Ms Sue Gray: Not if it’s subject to the agreement of the relevant minister.

Sorry, just, sorry, I should have mentioned when we were talking about collective responsibility in the coalition years, I forgot to mention actually there was this – they had a quad, they had a quad meeting. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that?

And so you had the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, both of the Conservative Party, and the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary, both of the Liberal Democrats, and they actually would meet, often, you know, weekly, I think, where they would talk about some of the issues that were facing them.

Sorry, I meant to mention that. And it was a really important part, actually, of making the coalition work effectively.

Counsel Inquiry: And that was aside from Cabinet meetings, that was a –

Ms Sue Gray: Absolutely, absolutely, and, you know, they would discuss and I think, you know, in a way setting aside collective responsibility was very much a last resort, but they would discuss some of those issues at that meeting.

Counsel Inquiry: You say in your statement that in Northern Ireland civil servants serve their minister rather than the government of the day, and that inevitably leads to an element of silo working.

When no ministers were in place, so prior to 11 January 2020, all the way through to 2017, did that same level of silo working happen?

Ms Sue Gray: I think so. I think though – you know, I joined probably halfway through the period without ministers, so joining in May 2018, and I think, you know, there is – there was a way of working which respected the individual departments.

Also, you know, departments were trying to follow whatever had previously been agreed by ministers when they were in office, so in terms of their policies and priorities, rather than depart from those, they were trying to, you know, follow what had previously been agreed.

Counsel Inquiry: So again coming back to culture –

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: – is it a cultural thing within the Civil Service that there seems to be this tendency to work in silos in Northern Ireland departments?

Ms Sue Gray: I think there is, there is definitely a culture issue about working in silos. I wouldn’t say it’s just for Northern Ireland.

Sorry –

Lady Hallett: Have you got the fly, Mr Scott?

Mr Scott: It landed on the microphone.

Lady Hallett: It’s taken a shine to me too, I’m afraid.

Ms Sue Gray: Sorry. There is also an element of silo working in the UK Civil Service, but I, actually reflecting on, you know, my own role when I went back to Whitehall, for the first, you know, six to nine months I was in the Cabinet Office, and then there was a machinery of government move and so some of my responsibilities went to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and I also became – you know, I also then held second permanent secretary there, so I was in two departments performing that role.

I think that’s quite hard to think that that would be possible to do here, and actually there was tremendous benefits from having – you know, being in two departments. You’re able to use the weight of both departments to get things done.

Mr Scott: You say that there is an element of silo working in Westminster. Is it more pronounced in Northern Ireland, do you think?

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: What do you think could be done to try to change that silo working?

Ms Sue Gray: So I do – I mean, I do think, you know, with the right – the approach and the culture, and I think that is from both Civil Service and ministerial leadership, to actually, you know, you can – you could actually have greater collaboration across departments.

Counsel Inquiry: Because plainly there’s the respect for the boundaries of the departments and the constitutional structures in Northern Ireland, but inevitably there are going to be areas where departments need to work together.

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: It doesn’t necessarily need to get to the level of reaching a cross-cutting decision but there does have to be departmental working at times; do you agree with that?

Ms Sue Gray: Yes, and I would say that in – you know, from my time here actually, you know, in the Covid period where the Department of Finance and I have to say, you know, I am actually hugely proud of the work they did, and actually for the whole of the Civil Service. There was great, there was collaboration across departments at that working level to deliver some of the support schemes, you know, to make sure that we were delivering the best and developing the best, and a lot of the transformation programmes that were happening were, you know, very much in collaboration with teams across departments. So it does happen, and I don’t want to give an impression that it doesn’t happen.

Counsel Inquiry: No, although I think in the corporate statement from the Department of Finance it sets out that there are times when there were schemes being created where actually there was going to be expenditure attached and the Department of Finance wasn’t involved at all.

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: So there may have been working, as you say –

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: – but would you agree it doesn’t seem ingrained in the way that departments operate, that there is that natural tendency to work with each other?

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah, I think it is, yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: Then just the other aspect of your statement where you say, the absence of an Executive and Assembly:

“In that situation there was inevitably a tendency for government, in the form of NICS, to be reactive rather than proactive.”

Do you think that that tendency caused the government to react rather than be proactive in the initial response to the pandemic in January and February 2020?

Ms Sue Gray: I think it was a very – a really pressured time, I would say. You know, we had just had – the Executive had just re-formed. You know, ministers were walking in the door as, you know, this was – this was becoming clear, you know, what we would need to do. Relationships were still being – you know, relationships were being formed between ministers and the Civil Service, and, you know, the Assembly was now back, so, you know, lots of work, additional work, coming in. And so I – yeah, I think the reactive nature – it was a reactive nature.

Counsel Inquiry: But again, just pressing that a little further, that’s a cultural aspect, isn’t it, in terms of reactiveness rather than proactiveness, that’s your words in your statement?

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: And so while those features might not have helped any cultural change, it’s still probably a lingering feature of the absence of ministers that there was this lack of proactiveness in government departments?

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: You left in 2021, had you noticed any shift in change from reactiveness to proactiveness prior to returning back to the Cabinet Office?

Ms Sue Gray: Could you just explain a bit more about what you mean by …

Counsel Inquiry: Well, it’s just – as you say in your statement, there was a tendency to be reactive rather than proactive. That was your assessment of the way that the Civil Service tended to operate. My question is: in that year and a half or so between when ministers returned and then when you returned back to the Cabinet Office, had you seen a shift in mindset from what you’ve identified in your statement was the mindset in January 2020?

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah. So I think that there had been movement, and I think, you know, a greater willingness and opportunity to perhaps, you know, share and seek information from, you know, and work with others in other departments.

So, for example, you know, in the Department of Finance we had probably for the first time actually reached out in a very proactive way with the Treasury, with, you know, the finance minister forming, you know, really strong relationships actually with the Treasury, with Treasury ministers, the Chief Secretary in particular, and I think that enabled us to look to be more proactive and to think ahead in a way that perhaps, you know, we hadn’t done previously.

Counsel Inquiry: Then one of the aspects that the Inquiry’s been considering is data retention.

Ms Sue Gray: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: And we’ve been looking at this concept of IT Assist, and the IT Assist fell within the Department of Finance; that’s right?

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: What’s your experience of document retention by civil servants and/or ministers in Westminster compared to in Stormont?

Ms Sue Gray: So when I – when I arrived here, actually I felt that, you know – obviously within my own office, you know, document retention, you know, there was a very clear process for logging and recording documents, and, you know, emails and that. And it was actually – it was quite a time-consuming operation, so – and then I think if – you know, when you’re, you know, searching for material, it just wasn’t as intuitive as, you know, you might think, as well as I think in Whitehall and Westminster there had been quite a lot of work done around record-keeping and a fairly big review, which I think ended up with a cloud-based, you know, system, which was perhaps easier, and I know that – you know, I encouraged obviously the department to talk to the Westminster team that were actually – had done that review, so that we could try to, you know, see if there were improvements that we could make to make it, I suppose – you know, it was quite – it was very resource-intensive to record – you know, obviously, you know, my office recorded it, but all the material. But I think it was very resource-intensive. So how could we make it much easier, that rather than having to log on, you know, you just sort of tick something and it goes into the filing system.

Counsel Inquiry: Do you think that because it was so resource-intensive that maybe people were less likely to put everything on there that they otherwise would if it was a simpler system?

Ms Sue Gray: I think I was very fortunate in that I had somebody who was virtually full-time doing this, and I suspect, you know, others may not have had that, that time.

Counsel Inquiry: Then one final question, Ms Gray: do you consider there are any structural changes which could be made to the government in Northern Ireland to make it more responsive to an emergency?

Ms Sue Gray: I think this, I suppose, this comment, which I think is actually on the part of both Northern Ireland and the UK Government, I think there is, there would be real benefit in Northern Ireland, and in fact the other devolved governments, in Scotland and Wales, being a – involved in discussions that take place in Westminster from a very early stage. Not – you know, sometimes unfortunately, you know, they are not brought in at the earliest stages of development, and it – you know, conversations happen a bit further down the road, and I think that’s quite difficult sometimes for the devolved governments, who will not have the capacity and resources as the Westminster government, to be involved.

So I would say that I think both – and I think then the devolved governments as well, when – if they are invited to that sort of approach, that they need to embrace it as well. So I think both, both governments, I would say, could be – yes, could make changes.

Mr Scott: No further questions, thank you.

Questions From the Chair

Lady Hallett: Ms Gray, one of the problems that may be identified in some of the submissions about to be made to me is that the Department of Health was the lead government department – I’ve got used to the lead government department model now, whether it was appropriate in a civil emergency is another matter. They didn’t suggest triggering what I’m obliged to call NICCMA, Northern Ireland’s civil contingencies management arrangements. Anyway, they didn’t trigger the emergency arrangements.

Ms Sue Gray: Thank you very much.

Lady Hallett: I do hate acronyms.

Anyway, they didn’t trigger them because, I suspect, given the answers that I was – I heard from Sir David Sterling, they didn’t have the resources. Actually, it wasn’t Sir David, it was somebody else. Anyway, they didn’t have the resources. In other words of staff. So by triggering NICCMA they were taking staff away from the work they say they were doing.

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Lady Hallett: And because the Department of Health didn’t trigger or suggest that NICCMA be triggered, nobody else did, because they’re all working in silos.

Can you think of any possible solution to that kind of problem, apart from more staff, obviously, but …?

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah, so I think in cabinet – yes, sorry, in the Westminster model, the civil contingencies, there is a Civil Contingencies Secretariat which is, you know, hugely influential, I think, and it sits in the Cabinet Office, and it clearly, you know, it reports directly to the Cabinet Secretary and therefore to the Prime – you know, so it’s got an authority, it has – and it is taken, you know, it is a hugely serious body that is just – you know, can be stood up immediately. And I think it is, you know – people, you know – it is recognised for what it is.

In the Northern Ireland model, which I think the – probably the Executive Office probably has responsibility for civil contingencies, and I don’t think the Executive Office has a similar power, I suppose, or function as the Cabinet Office equivalent.

So I think that, you know, for future, in a way you need to, sort of, take it out a little bit, probably, if it’s – you know, if it’s in a particular lead department, if they are thinking about the resourcing and why they wouldn’t do it, it would be – there should be another way of actually making sure that that gets triggered, and I think there is a role for the Executive Office.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much. I’m very grateful. Sorry, I knew there was another thought going through my head. Does it in part go back to what I heard about in Module 1, I think, which is the way in which resilience and preparedness for civil emergencies is treated within all sorts of governments, not necessarily just in Northern Ireland –

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Lady Hallett: – and that basically you may have ministers quite interested in ensuring we’re properly prepared for a terrorist incident, say, a malicious threat –

Ms Sue Gray: Yeah.

Lady Hallett: – as opposed to a natural hazard, but natural hazards aren’t taken quite as – they may be taken seriously by some, but – by other ministers, not – is it giving some oomph behind resilience and preparedness?

Ms Sue Gray: I think so. I think it’s giving oomph and I think it’s

giving authority and actually recognising that it is

a really essential part of government, and, you know,

making it recognised that actually people want to go and

work there. People want to do this. It’s seen –

they’re valued for doing it. But I think if, you know,

it stays within a line department, as we would call

them, then I don’t think it would get the importance or

the recognition that it deserves, which is why, if the

Executive Office here, I think, had that

responsibility – and was given the authority to take it

forward.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed. I’m really

grateful for your help.

The Witness: No, thank you very much.

Lady Hallett: I am sorry it was such a short – well, maybe

you’re not sorry it is a short period.

The Witness: No.

Lady Hallett: Thank you so much for coming.

The Witness: Thank you.

(The witness withdrew)

Lady Hallett: Right, I think that now completes the

evidence, and we’re on to closing submissions.

Ms Campbell, I think you’re up first.