Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I welcome the very busy people who are here to brief us. We thank you very much for your time. Jayne Brady is the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) and the chair of the interim public-sector transformation board (PSTB). Neil Gibson is the permanent secretary in the Department of Finance. Aidan McMahon is the director of the Department's fiscal policy division. David Hughes is the Department's head of corporate services.

We have had a lot of discussion about the PSTB and have received papers on it, albeit not the specific letter about the interim board's work from its chair to the Minister of Finance. I invite you to give us a brief opening statement — in the nicest and politest way, the emphasis is on "brief" — after which we will ask questions.

I suggested to Committee members in advance that we group our questions thematically. We do not always do that, but I ask that we have questions first on the public-sector transformation board and then questions on the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme report from the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO). After that, we can deal with any ancillary matters that members wish to raise, as always, within reason and within the bounds of relevance and courtesy.

I hand over to you now, Jayne.

Dr Jayne Brady (The Executive Office): Thank you, Chair. I am grateful to have an opportunity to update the Committee on the work of the interim public-sector transformation board and the other matters that you mentioned. In particular, I will update you on the progress of the transformation board, and I have a few points to make in a brief opening statement.

As you mentioned, I am pleased to be joined by Aidan McMahon, who has been supporting the work of the interim transformation board as the director of the Department of Finance's fiscal policy division, as well as by Neil Gibson, the Department's permanent secretary, and David Hughes, its head of corporate services.

You will be aware that the financial package for the Executive includes £235 million of ring-fenced funding for public-sector transformation. Access to that funding is contingent on the establishment of a public-sector transformation board that considers transformative proposals. The Minister of Finance presented a way forward on transformation and the specific funding for it to Executive colleagues on 9 May 2024. The Executive endorsed the Minister's paper, and, following that, the Minister made quick progress on establishing the interim public-sector transformation board.

The board has met seven times since it was established in May, and I record my personal thanks to my fellow board members Julie Harrison and Frances Ruane for their dedication and professionalism so far. In my capacity as chair of the interim board, I wrote to the Finance Minister on three occasions: on 10 July, 14 August and 9 September. I also met her on 31 July and 22 October to discuss progress.

I understand that the Finance Minister and the wider Department of Finance have been keeping the Committee updated on the progress of the interim board's work through written updates and appearances at Committee by officials. The updates that I have provided have included that, during the first stage of our assessment, 47 proposals were received, with all Departments submitting ones. That amounted to around £750 million in requested funding, which is three times more than is available throughout the five-year period. Outlining the opportunity, the interim board sought to consider collectively the batch of digital proposals that were received to allow for a more strategic, system-wide approach to digital transformation, and it recommended that the Department of Finance and the Executive Office work together to develop terms of reference for the digital landscape review. It is anticipated that the interim board will want to engage directly with Departments on the content of their proposals in order to understand them in more depth and then provide feedback ahead of the second stage of the process.

My most recent update to the Minister of Finance stated that 29 proposals had been selected by the interim board to be moved forward after we complete our first-stage assessment. Eighteen of those are categorised as digital and will be included in the agreed digital landscape review that is expected to complete around the end of this year, with the other 11 being moved to a second-stage assessment. As a board, on 18 September, in order to provide verbal feedback, we met the seven Departments responsible for the 11 proposals that are moving to the second stage. Those Departments were asked to submit a revised proposal to the interim board for a final assessment by last Friday, 18 October, with a view to making advice available to the Minister of Finance as soon as possible thereafter.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): To be clear, of the initial 47 proposals, we are down to 11.

Dr Brady: We are down to 29 proposals.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Sorry, 11 of the proposals are digitally enabled ones.

Dr Brady: Eighteen are within the digital scope, and the 11 proposals that are outside that scope have moved to the second stage.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Right. Eleven proposals are not digital.

Dr Brady: Eleven are not digital.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Fine. There are still 29.

Dr Brady: There are still 29. The 18 are being considered under the digital landscape review, and updated proposals for 11 of them were received last Friday. In addition, the Department of Finance is working alongside counterparts in the Northern Ireland Office to finalise terms of reference for the interim board. Once our work has been progressed and advice has been given to the Minister of Finance, she will bring her recommendations to the Executive for consideration and agreement.

The reform and transformation of public services is vital to supporting and sustaining the delivery of many of our public services and to improving our financial sustainability. While we know that the £235 million of funding over five years will in no way tackle the magnitude of the issues in hand, it can be significant for helping develop and implement a model of delivery that will stimulate the wider transformation of public services. The Executive are committed to reform and transformation, which has been recognised as a priority in their draft Programme for Government (PFG). There is, of course, a breadth of work to be done to ensure that we are successful. I recognise the work of Ministers and Departments and their commitment to and positive engagement with the interim board's work on that element of transformation that has been progressed. We are all happy to answer questions.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you very much.

Members, as always, please indicate if you wish to ask a question. I will ask a relatively broad question first. What do you mean by "transformation"?

Dr Brady: The Finance Minister provided advice to the Executive for consideration at their meeting in May, where "transformation" was defined as having three broad areas. First, it is about our services having better fiscal sustainability and predictability. Secondly, it is about transformation of services to improve outcomes and the manner of service delivery. Thirdly, it is about cost savings, early intervention and prevention. Those are the criteria that were brought to the Executive for consideration and have been used by the interim transformation board in its evaluation, in addition to analysis that Department of Finance officials have done on rating the proposals.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): What is the biggest area of resource departmental expenditure limit (RDEL) expenditure in the Northern Ireland Budget?

Dr Brady: The most substantive areas — 80%-plus — come from the Department of Health, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The Department of Health's expenditure is the biggest part of the Budget, is it not?

Dr Brady: Yes. In fact, Rafael Bengoa recently indicated that the Department of Health would consume the entirety of the Budget if transformation was not addressed by 2040.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Do you think that healthcare is the area in which services are under most pressure?

Dr Brady: There are a number of areas in which the Department of Health needs to be considered in the round, as identified by Professor Bengoa. First, there is the need to stabilise services, which includes addressing waiting lists and provision and the unacceptable waiting times that Northern Ireland citizens have been experiencing. That situation is entirely unsustainable.

Secondly, however, looking at the broader picture, transformation of areas of secondary care is needed. We need to determine how we can stem the tide of people ending up on waiting lists. That very much comes down to the primary care initiative and the social care initiative, which is what Professor Bengoa and the Minister of Health have identified.

Thirdly — this is possibly the most important aspect of transformation — 80% of the health determinants that cause people to present at accident and emergency departments are mostly predetermined by their socio-economic upbringing, so there is a need for a wider approach. Indeed, Ministers have referred to that, and the Health Minister has done so in statements that he has made. It is indicated in the draft Programme for Government that that needs to be tackled at the preventative stage, because many of the aspects involved are socio-economically derived.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Remind me how much the Department of Health has bid for.

Dr Brady: Perhaps Aidan can provide details of the packages.

Mr Aidan McMahon (Department of Finance): The bids have changed from the initial first stage into the second stage. There has been feedback from the interim transformation board, and, as Jayne mentioned, we have received revised proposals from Departments. The quantum of what Departments are bidding for has flexed and changed over time, so it is not one static figure, if that makes sense.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Roughly how much money does the Department of Health want?

Mr McMahon: I can check, but, from memory, at the start, it was potentially in and around £160 million. I would need to confirm that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That would be the vast bulk of the £235 million. We all know and accept that, to meet public service delivery, the Department of Health is one of the Departments most under stress. It is also the biggest spending area, and that spend is growing, as you said. Rafael Bengoa said that it could take up literally all our Budget in the period ahead. Why not just give all the money to the health service and try to properly transform it?

Dr Brady: That reflects Professor Bengoa's position, which may be an assessment that the Finance Minister and other Ministers consider to be a determinant. Our evaluation is looking to the broader piece. Addressing waiting lists will not in itself provide a level of sustainability. Doing so may address the current stabilisation issues, but, with our ageing demographic, particularly as we anticipate that the number of people over the age of 85 will have doubled by 2040, a different approach to transformation needs to be taken.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I do not necessarily mean that all the money should go on tackling waiting lists, but is there an argument that we should devote as much of the money as possible to reducing costs in the health service, given that such a huge pressure exists there? Is there a risk that you will end up in a situation in which, because of the classic silos in Northern Ireland, everyone has to get a go, when the most transformational thing would be to focus properly on transforming the health service. We could then worry about — I say this with the greatest respect to very worthy projects — small, digitally enabled projects that could be funded out of other money by the Department of Finance or the Courts and Tribunals Service.

Dr Brady: It is not for the interim transformation board to provide decision-making: we provide advice. That advice is initially for the Finance Minister, but it will be for the Executive to determine. They have indicated the areas of priority as achieving fiscal sustainability, which is a key aspect; the transformation of service by way of outcomes and outputs for citizens; and the cost-to-save directions. My advice is that what provides that return on investment needs to be considered in the round in line with the core aspects. Some of the digital enablement areas can provide a significant return on investment, even in the lifetime of the fund.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): What do you mean by "in the round"?

Dr Brady: They would be proposals for the Executive to consider in the round as opposed to taking a specific approach.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You said that it will be for the Executive to decide, for example, whether they say, "We will focus all the money on the health service. There is £235 million here. This doesn't mean that we don't want to transform other parts of the public sector, but we know that Health has the biggest costs. We know that there is collapse happening, and it is going to eat up all our budget, so let's just focus on Health". The Executive cannot decide to do that unless it is an option in front of them, and, at the minute, it is not.

Dr Brady: The options and the criteria that we have been using to evaluate those options were provided by the Finance Minister and agreed by the Executive. We are not defining our own parameters. We are taking advice and exhibiting governance.

The Health Minister has delivered some of the health aspects by improving the well-being outcomes. He has focused on areas of social deprivation, because health outcomes there are so predetermined from a whole of Northern Ireland perspective by some of those significant determinants, particularly healthy life expectancy. There is a difference of around 10 years for those in socially and economically deprived areas and on the basis of other outputs.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Before I bring in other members, have any Ministers raised any concerns about a UK Government (UKG) civil servant being a member of the interim transformation board?

Dr Brady: The parties that were entitled to form an Executive were part of the engagement that took place on the package of fiscal support. As part of that financial package, it was dictated that UK Government officials would be represented on it.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It was dictated, so Chris Heaton-Harris or a senior official told you that.

Dr Brady: It was in the correspondence that was provided with the package. We were aware in advance of an Executive being formed that it was a condition, and that has played out. The UK Government are represented on the board, and its nominee to that board was a Northern Ireland Office official, on the understanding that it was a condition of the financial package and was done through engagement with Treasury. Aidan, do you have anything to add?

Mr McMahon: Yes. To reinforce what has been said, it was in the financial package and in correspondence to our Minister from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (CST), and it is a commitment in the interim fiscal framework.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Why did the UK Government want a representative on the board?

Mr McMahon: That is probably a question for them.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): They did want it, however. The person was recruited not to spitball ideas or because of their knowledge but because Whitehall said that it wanted that person on the board

Dr Brady: The UKG, as part of the package on offer, requested that there be UK Government representation on the board. I understand that it was put to the UK Government to nominate who that was to be, and the person nominated is an NIO official.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Fair enough. It is unusual, however, that we are still in a position in which decisions are being made about an interim board by the UK Government.

Dr Brady: To confirm, no decisions are being made. This is an interim transformation board. As a criterion, we are providing an outline of what the Executive have agreed. We are evaluating, but, ultimately, decisions will be for the Minister to take.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Is ruling out some of the 47 proposals to get the number down to 29 not taking a decision?

Dr Brady: It is advice that we are providing to the Minister to make a decision on.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The Minister could therefore unfurl a piece of paper from the bin and say, "I want to make that bid, but it was rejected". Theoretically, does the Minister have that option?

Dr Brady: We are acting under the direction of the Minister and the Executive in that regard. Our advice goes through to the Minister and the Executive, and it is for them to make decisions on their approach.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you very much. I will bring in colleagues now.

Ms Forsythe: Thanks for coming to speak to us. We were keen to hear more about the interim board's work. In the first instance, why is it an interim board?

Dr Brady: The terms of reference were to have a board at a ministerial level. As officials, we were keen to make sure that we could move as fast as possible and make progress. As I indicated, we have met seven times about progressing the proposals and moving to a position in which we can unlock funding, on the basis of Executive alignment, of course. Discussions were held, and the terms of reference are now with the Minister to consider and to bring to the Executive to refine. It was our view that having an interim board would allow us to move at pace.

My view as an official is that learnings about delivery will come out of this. There have been learnings already, and there will be learnings taken from this Committee meeting and the scrutiny provided. Having an interim board allows us further room to formalise things. From my engagement with Departments, this has been a significant and positive experience. We have addressed things in a different way and come up with propositions that show a level of innovation, although I acknowledge that the Civil Service has applied a different methodology and cultural approach.

We also need to engage with the Northern Ireland Audit Office, because some of the proposals may have slightly different levels of risk. We are keen to do that, and, in fact, we are meeting the Audit Office in the next number of weeks to refine its input into the process, which could then form the basis of more substantive terms of reference for the transformation board. Indeed, you are probably mindful that I, as chair of the interim transformation board, should not input directly to the governance vehicles of a board that I sit on.

Aidan, do you have anything to add?

Mr McMahon: I was just going to say that the Finance Minister was really keen to move as quickly as she could. When her paper was agreed at the Executive on 9 May, she moved very quickly. Within one or two weeks, she had appointed members to the interim board in order to have that quick progress. Although we recognise that the terms of reference have not been agreed, the Minister's position has probably been justified, in that we have made a lot of progress in the intervening period.

Ms Forsythe: The purpose of its being an interim board was to get it moving while the terms of reference were being drawn up. Is it the position that the interim board becomes the permanent board, or will there be a recruitment process for a new board?

Mr McMahon: Our Minister absolutely sees the membership of the current board as being the foundation of any final board. That is her expectation.

Ms Forsythe: Jayne, what is your idea of the optimal size of the board? Are there any additional skills to be brought on to it?

Dr Brady: Certainly. More broadly than the transformation itself, the reform and transformation will require us to access different skill sets and different thoughts. In fact, in the draft Programme for Government, Ministers have outlined the areas required, taking skill sets from the UKG, Whitehall, North/South relations and, indeed, internationally. Overall, I see a panel of experts as being needed for transformation. This is my second time at the Committee, and, since my previous visit, we have appointed our Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA). It is someone who has a significant depth of expertise in science, technology and entrepreneurship but who also sits on a forum of Chief Scientific Advisers for the UK Government and deals with the Irish Government. That person will therefore provide access to reference funds and the like.

We will discuss learnings later, potentially at your convenience, Chair. In its findings in its report on the RHI scheme, the NIAO talks about the need to bring in specialist expertise. The learnings from the interim transformation board were the vast, significant number of proposals that came out of it. There are 18 of them in the digital space. We cannot rely on Departments in which we do not have that expertise to come up with the best ideas. Indeed, none of us will be innovating very significantly in the digital space. We are not even fast followers from where things are otherwise. We therefore felt that it was really important that we commissioned specific experts to address that as an intentional focus. I imagine that there will be significant areas that we can gauge from them. The initial area that we have looked at is in that digital space, by appointing a Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser.

The scale of the proposals will not require a discipline set that covers all the services. The experts are more likely to be individuals to whom we would refer for specific expertise. As part of building up the interim transformation board, I have engaged with Whitehall colleagues in the UKG on their current reform and transformation. I have also engaged with those who deliver digital services for government, as well as Irish Government officials, to inform that base. In addition to having key contacts identified, such as our CSTA, we have reference to other, softer discussions.

Again, the appointment of the board and the terms of reference will be for Ministers and the Executive to decide.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you. To build on the point that the Chair made about the transformative nature of the £235 million pot, I just want to make sure that we have the confidence that the proposals are truly transformative and innovative. You have two hats on: you are chairing the transformation board, but you are also head of the Civil Service. Of the proposals that came through the transformation board, how many of them had you seen before as bids from Departments to digitise or improve their services?

Dr Brady: I do not think that I had seen any of the bids before. I was aware of a number of programmes in the Department of Finance, such as the Integr8 programme. I know that officials have shared those programmes and that they are ongoing platforms of work, but I was not aware of any particular aspects of them. Bids would not come across my desk regularly. I am not an accounting officer for any of the Departments, so I am not signing off any bids in a fiduciary capacity, unlike all the other perm secs, who would see them, I would imagine. Neil was not involved in decision-making. There is therefore no conflict of interest, because proposals are not coming from that office. On reflection, it was very important for us to look at the details of the proposals that came through for evaluation. All the digital proposals were moved forward for consideration, but the Department of Finance and the Executive Office did not have any successful proposals that were moved forward to the second stage.

Ms Forsythe: Neil, did the Department of Finance unsuccessfully bid for some things through the normal Budget monitoring process?

Mr Neil Gibson (Department of Finance): Yes. I was familiar with many of the bids from my Department, as you would expect. Some were well known — Integr8 being the obvious one — but others were only in the foothills of idea generation. Those would have come up in my engagement with staff. It was a real opportunity to add a little bit of structure to some of them and get them into slightly better shape. A couple of proposals came through that were fresh and completely new to me.

To be honest, although we were not successful as a Department, it has been quite a useful process for helping with culture change and helping us think differently about what we might get money for in the future. It sparked a few conversations at our board about how we might join up on some things and about some of the digital ideas. The process was therefore a catalyst for bringing in some new thoughts. Our feedback has been very helpful for our understanding of where we came up short and what that means for me as an accounting officer if I am to try to improve the Department's transformation journey.

Dr Brady: This is the first year of an interim set-up, in which we have been taking feedback. A total of £750 million of bids were made for £235 million tops, so filtering needed to be applied. Some proposals were stronger than others, but they all had merit, and I anticipate that many of them could be refined and be revisited. Indeed, verbal feedback was given to those who have now brought back proposals for the second stage. There was a presentation on the day to the interim board members. That is reflected in the fact that revised proposals then came back with enhancements.

Many proposals identified a strong and compelling need for transformation, but some were stronger than others on how they would provide substantive change. External scrutiny was provided by asking, "What will this proposal deliver for this amount?", not just, "Is this a really big problem that needs to addressed?". That is almost very clear from what we see in our services, Deputy Chair.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you. Finally, you said that you are not a decision-making body but an advisory one. Does that mean that all 47 proposals will be part of a paper that goes to the Executive, or will it just be the 29 proposals?

Dr Brady: That will be for the Minister to decide. She has indicated that she is content with the approach that is being taken. A further 18 proposals will form part of the digital landscape review. It is unlikely that that will be completed by the end of the year, so the timing may be out somewhat. We have provided feedback on the initial areas. The further substantive input has been on the 11 further proposals. Departmental officials are considering the proposals. We are meeting the week after next so that we can then give our advice to the Finance Minister for her consideration.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Jayne, for those answers so far. Is the budget that has been made available for transformation out of the financial package still profiled as being £47 million each year for five years, or has any change been made to the profiling?

Mr McMahon: I will jump in on that, Jayne. At the very beginning, we recognised that it was highly unlikely that it would absolutely be £47 million on the head every year for five years. We have reflected that to Treasury officials, and the Finance Minister also spoke to the CST about that. Although we do not have any final decision on what we can expect the spend to be this year and over the next number of years, we know that it will be more lumpy than receiving £47 million every single year. We have flagged that with Treasury officials. The expectation on both sides is that the profile will be different.

Mr Tennyson: OK. Is there a risk this year that we will end up surrendering money from the financial package? Are you confident that there will be an agreement?

Mr McMahon: That is not an expectation on our side. We are trying to stay in lockstep with Treasury on the work of the board and in our advice to the Minister, which she then takes to the Executive, to determine how that feeds into our budget for next year and the following years. We are not expecting it to be a problem.

Dr Brady: Some of the delays to agreeing the transformation board's terms of reference were caused by the change of Government. That has meant that those discussions have not been able to progress. At an official level, we are progressing as far as possible, so there is the potential to have funds deployed in this fiscal year, depending on the proposals' readiness. It is unlikely that we would ever be able to profile £47 million flat. In fact, it would be impossible to do so. We would expect there to be a differential in each of the years across all areas.

Of course, the UK Government official also sits on the interim transformation board, so we will be well placed to advise on readiness and availability.

Mr Tennyson: That is helpful; thank you. When it comes to the criteria that the board is applying, one of the elements that is being considered is alignment with Programme for Government goals. How did the board's considerations align with the development of the Programme for Government, and are you confident that the proposals that have gone to stage 2 align with it?

Dr Brady: The draft Programme for Government identifies the interim transformation board as part of the elements of reform and transformation and talks about the key area of service sustainability, particularly in Health, which we have covered, and in Justice and Education. So, there are those alignments. The provision agreed by the Executive, which informed those areas, was on fiscal sustainability, which, again, is an aspect of the draft Programme for Government, the fiscal sustainability plan and the revised fiscal framework, as well as those areas of service transformation and sustainability that, again, are well rehearsed in Health, Education and, in particular, Justice. It also calls out digital innovations in those areas.

Again, it will be for Ministers to consider whether those are right, but there has been substantive engagement on the draft Programme for Government and its reform and transformation elements. I have been attending those meetings with Ministers and I have another meeting this evening with the Northern Ireland Youth Assembly to hear the voices within it. The draft Programme for Government is not finalised, so there will need to be reflection on that when it is in the next number of days.

Mr Tennyson: Did the board have sight of the draft that has gone out for consultation before making decisions on phase 1, or was it very much a work in progress based on the information that was available?

Dr Brady: No, the board did not have sight of that before it was issued for public consultation.

Mr Tennyson: That is helpful. Will you elaborate on the need for the digital landscape review?

Dr Brady: The decision to commission a review reflected the fact that over a third of the proposals were in that digital space, which presented more substantive as well as smaller opportunities. It also reflected that we do not have core, embedded expertise in each of the Departments to cover digital. One of the key recommendations in the RHI inquiry report was that we needed to have experts informing our work in those areas and a more strategic approach. We could be developing projects with merit in one area, but there is very significant potential for read-across. There is also the potential, as an element of transformation and the likelihood of having to make cost savings, to look at automated intelligence and areas where we need to be better informed. There is a need for expert perspective to provide that. Again, there was a significant risk in taking a piecemeal approach, given that there needed to be a more strategic framework.

Mr McMahon: The board saw potential synergies between the separate proposals from the different Departments. Naturally enough, those Departments would not have necessarily been linked up to recognise those synergies. The board decided that a landscape review be carried out to take a step back, look at the systemic approach that could be taken and think about digital transformation across Departments, not just individual projects in individual Departments.

Dr Brady: One of the areas that we will assess in the digital landscape review is digital maturity overall in the Departments. There will also be an assessment of the landscape in other regions and whether there are things done there that can be applied here. There will be an assessment of those projects, with an implementation plan and potential recommendations. Again, experts will provide that.

Mr Tennyson: Do I have time for one more question in this section, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You do, yes.

Mr Tennyson: Will you elaborate on who exactly will conduct the review? Who will be involved? Were alternatives to a separate review considered, such as adding panel members to the board or contracting third-party consultants or something like that? What were the alternatives to setting up a separate review?

Dr Brady: It will go through a procurement phase, and a business case has been written. An appointment has not been made yet. The view was that — we made reference to this — because of how the areas strategically align, what the landscape may be and what learnings there may be from other places, specific expertise was required. We anticipate that to be an eight- to 10-week piece of work. It would be a significant proposition for someone to undertake as a panel member. I am also in discussions with the broader sector, and the UK Government have established a digital reference panel that may be helpful, as things progress, to Ministers' considerations. There will be a need for that resource, but, again, the review is a specific piece of work that was required across the service that was about more than representation. At the moment, we anticipate 10 working days for panel members. The review will involve bodies of work engaging with Departments to understand the areas of alignment and opportunity.

Mr Carroll: Jayne, maybe you or Neil will answer my first question. Of the 29 proposals that were approved, 18 are digital. How many involve Fujitsu?

Dr Brady: None. Eighteen have moved to the next stage as part of the landscape review. Eighteen proposals of the 43 —

Mr McMahon: Forty-seven.

Dr Brady: — 47 — were digital. We just put those in to say, "These need to be assessed in a broader strategic context". None of them was supplier-led. They are views from Departments, some of which are at a rudimentary level —.

Mr Carroll: So, Fujitsu had no involvement in those approvals.

Dr Brady: No, it has not had any involvement in them.

Mr Carroll: No problem; that is fine.

Following on from a previous question, Treasury has been pushed to sign off the terms of reference. What is the hold-up in getting that sign-off?

Mr McMahon: There was the change in the UK Government. The terms of reference were initially considered by and discussed with the previous Government, and that had to start again with the new Government. That is certainly part of the reason. Jayne alluded to the terms of reference that are sitting on our Minister's desk for her consideration, and officials will meet the Minister to discuss them in the next couple of days.

Mr Carroll: The terms of reference are with the Finance Minister.

Mr McMahon: Yes. At a certain point, she will need to bring them to the Executive.

Mr Carroll: OK. What role does the NIO permanent secretary play on the interim board? If there are votes, is her vote as valid as everybody else's? Is there a veto mechanism? It is all done by consensus, presumably, but I am curious as to her role and status on that board.

Dr Brady: As identified, that was part of the fiscal package for the restoration of the Executive. There was a requirement in the communication on the package from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and they nominated a representative from the Northern Ireland Office. That representative has representation equal to that of the other members of the board. At this stage, we have not agreed terms of reference for their role. They will provide for decisions on areas where there may be disagreement, voting and consensus. There have not been any areas of no consensus, which is, as you might imagine, as you would wish it to be on that board.

Mr Carroll: There is equal membership, and there are no votes or veto.

Mr McMahon: The terms of reference are to be agreed — they are not settled — but Jayne's point is that there has been consensus across the panel to date.

Mr Carroll: On the interim board, there is equal membership. Everybody is an equal member. Nobody's vote is more powerful than anybody else's.

Dr Brady: If it were, that would be a consideration for the terms of reference.

Mr Carroll: Does the NIO permanent secretary sit on the interim board?

Dr Brady: Yes. Up to this moment, there has been consensus.

Mr Carroll: OK. There have not been any votes or disagreements.

Dr Brady: We have not had any votes.

Mr Carroll: Aidan, if I picked you up correctly, it is likely that the terms of reference of the permanent board will be similar to those of the interim board. Will the NIO permanent secretary sit on the permanent board or will there automatically be another British Government appointee? Is that being looked at?

Dr Brady: The Finance Minister has indicated that she is content for the final terms of reference to be aligned with those of the interim board, but that will be a decision for the Executive, and there will be a discussion with UKG, I imagine, as they will need to sign off the terms of reference because that was a provision of the package.

Mr McMahon: A final point is that it is for the UK Government — not the Finance Minister — to nominate their representative on the board. That is a decision for the UK Government.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that. If the Finance Minister decided against having a British Government representative on the board, what would happen?

Mr McMahon: There would be a political discussion between our Minister, the Finance Minister and the Secretary of State.

Mr Carroll: OK. Thanks.

Mr Brett: Thank you all for your presentations. David, have you seen a copy of the proposals that were put to the board?

Mr David Hughes (Department of Finance): My role is not related to that line of work.

Mr Brett: Neil, have you seen a copy of them?

Mr Gibson: No. I have only seen the proposals from the Department of Finance. In the interim phase, Aidan has been offering some secretariat support to the board, but I do not see bids from any other Department.

Mr Brett: You have seen them, Jayne.

Dr Brady: I have seen them.

Mr Brett: Aidan, have you seen them?

Mr McMahon: Yes, I have seen them.

Mr Brett: Civil servants have seen them, but it is the view that elected members on the Committee should not be able to see them. Is that right?

Dr Brady: The view that the Executive took was that we would provide the initial analysis and advice to the Finance Minister.

Mr Brett: Where was that view given by the Executive?

Dr Brady: The view that —?

Mr Brett: The view that the Committee should not be allowed a couple of lines detailing the projects. When was that brought to the Executive and when was an Executive decision taken on that?

Dr Brady: The provision of —.

Mr Brett: My concern is that, as a scrutiny Committee, we are entitled to know what those projects are. You said that the board is not a decision-maker, but we have gone from 47 projects to 29. In my view, that is a decision that has been taken.

Revised proposals were to be submitted by 18 October. Did that only apply to the 11 stage 2 projects?

Mr McMahon: That is correct.

Mr Brett: You are saying that you have not made any decisions in relation to projects that are not viable. You have only asked for 11 projects to be taken forward to stage 2, so the 19 that did not make it through to that stage have not been able to resubmit, change their proposals or change the amount of funding that they are bidding for. That is a decision that the interim board has made.

Dr Brady: That has been agreed by the Finance Minister —.

Mr Brett: It is fair enough that that has been agreed by the Finance Minister, but my point is that you told the Chair that the board is not making any decisions. You have made decisions.

Dr Brady: We have provided advice to the Finance Minister who made that decision.

Mr Brett: So, you are saying that the Finance Minister made the decision to take the 47 projects down to 29.

Dr Brady: The Finance Minister accepted the advice of the interim transformation board.

Mr Brett: On what date did the Finance Minister agree that the 47 projects should be whittled down to 29?

Mr McMahon: She will have received advice from —.

Mr Brett: What date did she make the decision to sign off that the 47 should be brought down to 29, and that only those 11 that are at stage 2 should be asked to resubmit or be able to change the amount of funding that they can apply for?

Mr McMahon: It is a condition in the financial package —.

Mr Brett: I know that it is a condition, but I am asking when the Finance Minister made the decision —.

Mr McMahon: It is the CST's —.

Mr Brett: I know that, Aidan, but when did —

Mr McMahon: The board that has to push forward those proposals that it considers to be transformational. That is what the Executive and the Finance Minister agreed on 9 May. That is the function that the board is carrying out.

Mr Brett: I get that. The head of the Civil Service said that the Finance Minister made the decision to reduce the number of projects from 47 to 29. On what date did she make that decision?

Mr McMahon: She will have got correspondence from the —.

Mr Brett: You do not know the date on which she made the decision.

Mr McMahon: I have the correspondence, which I think the Committee will have been informed of as well, from officials in DOF, that lists the 11 projects and the projects that are in the digital transformation space.

Mr Brett: Yes, but there was no expressed view in any of the letters that were sent by the Minister of Finance to the Committee to say that she had made a decision on those projects? If the line coming from the board is that its members are not decision-makers, that needs to be backed up with when those political decisions were taken.

In relation to 18 October, what is the financial variation in the bids that have been made on those 11 projects?

Mr McMahon: We do not have that aggregate figure at this point in time, and the Minister does not have it either.

Mr Brett: When will the Minister have that figure?

Mr McMahon: The board is meeting on 7 November. It will consider the new proposals and then advise the Minister on the situation.

Mr Brett: I know that it will consider those proposals, but 18 October was last week.

Mr McMahon: Last Friday.

Mr Brett: Yes. Has no one calculated the changes or what the new —?

Mr McMahon: A couple of proposals were slightly delayed. The last one came in yesterday. While we have that information and those figures, an aggregate figure has not yet been calculated.

Mr Brett: Finally, which Department failed to meet the deadline of last Friday?

Mr McMahon: I do not have that information at hand.

Mr Brett: Was it just one Department that failed to meet the deadline?

Mr McMahon: I do not have that information at hand.

Mr Brett: I get that, but we, as a Committee, have been clear about wanting to get information about the board for some time. We have been trying to arrange that. You would have thought that some of that information would have been available to the Committee at this stage.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is worth saying that we still have not seen the September letter. We would be more than happy to receive a copy of that at some point.

Miss Brogan: Thank you, folks, for coming to the Committee and for your presentation. It is very helpful to get the information; I really appreciate your giving up your time. My first question is on the back of a few questions from Eóin, Gerry and Diane about the membership of the interim board. How effective do you think that the board has been, given its make-up? Is it easier to offer advice and come to decisions if there are fewer members of the board who seek advice from experts when necessary? Do you think that that is an easier way in which to work? Will you offer some more information on the type of advice that you have sought, and probably will seek, from experts?

Dr Brady: Thank you, Miss Brogan. I have found its evaluation process to be effective. I thank colleagues in the Department of Finance who have provided analysis in advance. Obviously, some of the members of our board have broad domain expertise, but, in terms of the framework that they were looking at, that was a really helpful aspect. It was set by the Executive on the areas that we wanted to identify. It was really clear that consideration for that digital piece required some specific expertise from a strategic and a joined-up approach, which Aidan referred to. We have referenced the work of the CSTA. We anticipate bringing it into the review as it progresses.

Some of the areas that we identified in the feedback regarding the proposals was about not the specifics of the service that they were providing but whether the information provided showed a return on investment, whether the outcomes were clear, and how the project would provide some level of sustainability. It was less about the specifics of the actual technical intervention and more about the structure of the proposal. That is why it was really helpful to have the proposals presented in addition to the framework that was provided as part of the Executive-agreed process. There will be learnings from the progress of the interim transformation board, the input from the Committee and the output and workings of the Executive. We have also kept Departments apprised of the process.

Miss Brogan: That leads me on to my next question, Jayne. You mentioned a few times that lessons have been learned throughout the process. Will you offer some more information on the types of lessons that have been learned, and where things can go in the future?

Dr Brady: That is really helpful. There have been lessons for the Departments. I have engaged with perm secs who have found the experience to be very positive, even those whose projects were not moved forward. There is a different way of thinking, which looks towards more innovation and identifying areas in which we can provide that transformation. That has been really positive. Colleagues can reference examples of that, and I know that Aidan gave input into that process. There is a way of working that can be looked at as part of that process. Looking to the lessons learned, I said that with view to potential for funding decisions being taken this year. I think that there is a broader piece — it is identified in the draft Programme for Government — about how we engage local government, the community and voluntary sector and arm's-length bodies (ALBs) in that provision. That is a key area that can be factored into consideration for a following year with confirmed, revised terms of reference.

Also, there is the ability for a fund of this nature to deliver a vehicle for leveraging other funding. Obviously, there is substantive funding from the Shared Island Fund and the Shared Prosperity Fund, and there is philanthropy funding. Indeed, those were identified as potential areas where funding could crystallise. I think that that could be delivered as a much more strategic focus. PEACE PLUS talks of that level of transformation, so the ambitions of the programme align with some of the ambitions of those funds, which seek to deliver and deploy money in Northern Ireland. Some of those areas have been outwith the policy of the Executive, so that is a mechanism that could be explored to leverage further funding and create a multiplier effect. It is about how we engage an all-of-government approach and how we embed, when we do have an agreed Programme for Government, areas where we can make progress. Those are my considerations.

I may be leveraging too much from Professor Bengoa, but he said that it is not just about systems and structures but about people and relationships and how you get new ways of doing things. Key to that will be engagement with the Audit Office to understand the governance and the appropriateness of that governance vehicle and how we can keep right. Aidan, you will have had other experiences.

Mr McMahon: I will add in something that Jayne alluded to earlier. Departments found it really valuable — I know that the board did — to have had that day in Stormont Castle on 18 September where we had Departments coming in and, if you like, pitching their proposal. Obviously, you have a pro forma document for the proposal that the board can assess, but nothing can substitute that kind of interaction with officials to improve the depth of understanding of a particular proposal. The board found that really useful, and I think that the Departments also did in being able to give that depth of understanding on what they were pitching for.

Miss Brogan: That makes sense, Aidan. As you said, having that level of engagement works better for both sides. That leads me on to my final question. Aidan, you have been working closely with Jayne in a secretariat role. What level of engagement has the interim board had with the Department of Finance, beyond that with Aidan, and with other Departments beyond their applying to the board. Has there been further engagement with Departments?

Mr McMahon: In the Department of Finance, we have tried to facilitate and help by providing a secretariat for the transformation board. Generally, the board has not, if you like, bled out into wider parts of the Department. We have been providing that function quite discretely to the board. In and outside of the meetings that I talked about, where Departments came and pitched, Jayne will have kept her colleagues at permanent secretaries stocktake (PSS) up to date by giving them a regular briefing at their Friday meetings on the transformation board process. Any time there has been correspondence from Jayne, representing the board, to the Finance Minister, the Finance Minister has informed her Executive colleagues. Hopefully, all Ministers and permanent secretaries were kept abreast of developments.

Dr Brady: In addition to keeping them abreast, we also made sure that we kept their insight on the proposals close. Again, I am not an accounting officer, and neither the accounting officer in TEO, David Malcolm, nor Neil through his role, given that they were proposing bids, were party to the other bids as part of that consideration. As we create the structures, as anticipated in the draft Programme for Government, for the reform and transformation unit, we are establishing resource in the Executive Office. I have colleagues with me today to listen in and to take the feedback from the Committee so that we can embed that in the structures.

Miss Brogan: That is fair enough, Jayne. Thanks very much for that.

Mr Frew: I am really intrigued that you were not able to offer up to my colleague Phillip Brett a date when the Minister made the decision to rule out 18 proposals from Departments to avail themselves of this £235 million of spending.

You have had time to collect your thoughts. Can you now provide me with the date on which the Minister made the decision?

Dr Brady: The interim transformation board has taken forward a process, as agreed by the Executive, to evaluate the proposals. We evaluated those in line with the framework that was agreed by the Executive. We recommended that the 11 and then the 18 proposals move forward for further evaluation. We provided a summary of that to the Finance Minister.

Mr Frew: When was that?

Mr McMahon: I will check the date. It was in September, from recollection.

Mr Frew: Would that be the letter, Jayne, that you wrote to the Finance Minister that we have not had sight of? In fact, we have been denied it by the Department. Is that the same letter?

Dr Brady: I am not party to what is provided from the Finance Department. Obviously, I am here as chair of the interim transformation board. I am not party to what was provided to the Committee.

Mr McMahon: I think that the correspondence that Jayne references and the information that the Committee got relate to the list of proposals that are through to stage 2 and the list of proposals that have the digital element that Jayne has already referenced.

Mr Frew: The head of the interim board sends a letter to the Minister on 9 September outlining her advice, because it was not a decision. How did the Minister respond?

Mr McMahon: Well, the Minister will have responded by greeting the advice and encouraging the board to continue to work on.

Mr Frew: What did the Minister say?

Mr McMahon: I do not have that correspondence to hand.

Mr Frew: Is there correspondence?

Mr McMahon: The Minister has had a number of meetings with Jayne and has shared a number of correspondences. We had our most recent meeting yesterday to discuss the work of the transformation board.

Mr Frew: So was it verbal?

Mr McMahon: No. The Minister will have responded.

Mr Frew: Do the 18 proposals from Departments that were removed from the opportunity of getting £235 million of spending not deserve an adequate decision process?

Dr Brady: The interim transformation board was giving effect to provide that process of bringing through evaluation, as outlined by the terms that were agreed by the Executive.

Mr Frew: So, the interim board's work is to evaluate; the decision is with the Minister. It is very clear what we have said today: we are simply asking for the actual date on which the Minister made her decision.

Mr McMahon: The Minister will make a decision and bring a recommendation to the Executive on the proposals that she recommends for transformation funding, following advice from the transformation board. That has not taken place yet.

Mr Frew: So, it is not the Finance Minister's decision then? It is an Executive decision. Is that what you are saying?

Mr McMahon: On what is funded ultimately, the board will provide advice to the Finance Minister. The Finance Minister will consider that and bring a recommendation to the Executive, which will ultimately decide which projects are funded.

Mr Frew: What did your letter dated 9 September say, Jayne?

Dr Brady: We are happy to provide information on that. I do not have the letter to hand. However, it provided a further update on the work of the transformation board. It detailed the proposals that were moving to the next stage, the proposals to be included in the digital landscape review and the proposals there were not moving forward to the next stage. We provided a list of the proposals in each category and stated that 29 proposals were moving forward to the next stage of the assessment by being part of the digital landscape review. We said that we should agree the next stages and that we would provide feedback on those. We are, obviously, happy to provide that letter to you.

Mr Frew: Why do you think that the Department of Finance denied us that letter?

Dr Brady: I was not aware that that letter was not provided. We can come back in terms of —

Mr Frew: Maybe the permanent secretary would like to —

Mr Gibson: Let me come back on that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): To be clear, we asked for the letter, and we were not given it.

Mr Gibson: Part of this is about trying new things. As we mentioned, I have to have a degree of freedom from that, because I cannot see and know about the other bids until they are assessed. There is probably a little bit of this that I am not privy to, for reasons of trying to keep the right ethical wall. Let me come back on that to make sure that the decision process that we took —. Perhaps, and I hold my hands up here, I have tried to be a little bit less involved, partly for that reason of being conflicted as one of the bidding Departments, so I cannot see what is in the letter before concluding.

Mr Frew: I get the conflicted bit. I also get the agility that you are trying to inject. I really do. However, that agility must come with transparency, and the fact is that this Committee was not even afforded that letter. We still do not know the dates when Ministers made decisions. We have been given no sort of assurance here today on that. It worries me that we do not have that. We were not even afforded a couple of lines to describe each of the 29 proposals that had actually made it through. We did not even ask for the 18 proposals that did not make it through. We only asked for a few lines of description of the 29 proposals that moved forward, and we were not even afforded that. So, whilst I like agility, it needs to come with transparency.

I remind you, and we will talk about this later, that finding 86 of the RHI inquiry report reads:

We are back to this report, folks. I am alarmed. I do not know how you feel.

Mr McMahon: What I would say, in terms of having a cut of information, if you like, from each of the proposals, is that the Department of Finance was not receiving them. It was the board that was receiving them. Neil has made the point that he never saw the proposals that came from other Departments. The Department of Finance — outside our role in supporting the board — was not in receipt of all the proposals that were put forward. We can speak about the Department of Finance proposals, obviously, and give additional information on them. However, take for example the Department of Health. If we were to give a paragraph of information in relation to one of its proposals, we might misrepresent it, for example. I think that it is for the Department of Health to provide its proposals, because, ultimately, it owns them, as opposed to the Department of Finance.

Mr Brett: That is not the reason you gave, though.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We can touch on these things when discussing the RHI inquiry.

Mr Frew: This is important. I was only citing that recommendation. We are not going on that ground yet, Chair.

I get the separation, the distance, but to whom is the interim board accountable?

Mr McMahon: Ultimately, the Executive have agreed the Finance Minister's proposal to establish an interim board based on the terms in the paper within —

Mr Frew: When this scrutiny Committee requests information from the Department of Finance, and we cannot be afforded a couple of lines of description because of this separation between the Department of Finance and the interim board, how is the interim board accountable? Who scrutinises the work of the interim board?

Mr McMahon: The interim board, obviously, reports to the Finance Minister.

Mr Frew: Who scrutinises the Finance Minister?

Mr McMahon: The Finance Minister will then bring recommendations to the Executive.

Mr Frew: My question was this: who scrutinises the Finance Minister? It is this Committee, is it not?

Mr McMahon: Yes.

Mr Frew: Do you see the breakdown here?

Dr Brady: I welcome your points about agility. Obviously, I am here as chair of the interim transformation board. It is under my direction. These are areas where we learn from this overall, and, again, our engagement with the Audit Office is to make sure that we are feeding that into those areas. This is my fourth time in front of a Committee since the Executive was restored. This is my second time in front of this Committee; I was at the PAC two weeks ago, in addition to attending the Executive. I really welcome the scrutiny and input. It is critical. There is a learning aspect, which I will need to factor into the terms of the interim transformation board, but, ultimately, there are decisions that are within each Minister's provision as well.

Mr Frew: This is my final question. Will you be able to furnish us that letter, Jayne, that you sent on 9 September and every reply to it?

Dr Brady: That will come, via the protocol, from the Finance Department and the Minister.

Mr Frew: The protocol being as it is, I am requesting it today.

Mr McMahon: It is obviously for the Finance Minister to decide whether she will release a letter that she has written, and Jayne can obviously do the same from her perspective.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Just before I bring in Deirdre, I put on the record that there is clearly a question about this. We appreciate the fact that we have received briefings and that you are here today giving evidence, but there is clearly a question about the opacity of this organisation and the fact that it continues to be an interim board. There is a slightly philosophical/theological debate about what constitutes a decision. I do not think it is a defensible position to eliminate loads of bids and then say that no decision has been taken. Other than in the most theoretical sense, it is a completely understandable point, but I think we can clear all that up.

Miss Hargey: To clarify the approach for the interim board, was that agreed by the Executive?

Dr Brady: Yes.

Miss Hargey: They have agreed that, and no issues have been raised in the intervening period. Is that right?

Dr Brady: No issues have been raised, and Departments have engaged very proactively with the process.

Miss Hargey: Also, the work is not finished yet in order to furnish further details. A decision has still to be taken by the Executive.

Dr Brady: The decision has still to be taken, and no funding decisions at all have been made. All advice could be disregarded on the funding decisions and different approaches.

Miss Hargey: Once that has been done, will the information be furnished to Committees on request?

Dr Brady: Absolutely. It will be furnished once it goes to the Executive for consideration. Again, it will be for Ministers to decide but the official information that we have provided is prepared for that.

Miss Hargey: Thank you. On the issue of lessons learned, we will be keen to see that. You have said that this is a new process and it is different. I was going to ask about widening this process. Jayne, you touched on it around other potential funds and taking a more strategic look. When we are looking at the lessons learned, I would be keen to look at the opportunities and potential and for the Committee to be given updates on that. I know that there was additional weighting for cross-departmental bids. I would like to get a sense of the breadth of the bids that have come forward, both the digital and other bids. Has there been much cross-departmental work among those bids?

Dr Brady: Yes. On your first point, we welcome how that could be dispersed further. We had a really helpful session with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE), members of the council and permanent secretaries last week regarding the consultation on the draft Programme for Government, how there could be joined-up areas of working and where there are funds, potentially, in the city deals and growth deals to align that funding and find new ways of working. The bids that came in, largely, came from Departments and were cleared by their Minister to go through that process. However, there were clear areas of synergy, and some of the feedback that we provided to those Departments coming through to stage 2 was around engaging more broadly in that sector, not just between Departments but, indeed, between ALBs and providers of functions. That is an area where we want to seek to get more joined-up approaches going forward. Aidan, do you have anything to add?

Mr McMahon: Yes, I was just going to make the same point. When we produced the initial pro forma, there was a question around whether the bid was cross-departmental, and the intention was to try to encourage that. To be fair to Departments, they had a very tight time frame to come back with their initial bid, but since then, and post feedback from the board, that has been encouraged further. Some of the feedback from the board to various Departments was asking, "Should you engage with your counterpoints in x Department?". That has increasingly happened among the stage 2 proposals that have come back in.

Miss Hargey: That will be part of the lessons learned reflection, because it is important to get out of the silos. As you said, sometimes you are just going through the work at pace and do not have time for those types of conversations. If this gives that opportunity, it is a good thing.

My last point is on something that Jayne said about the conversation around whether you give it all to Health. Obliviously, we are trying to move more to prevention rather than treating ailments, whether that is in Health, Education or whatever. You touched on a point about deprivation and inequality and the fact that, in sections of our population that are segregated by social class, people are dying 10 years younger than others just because of where they live or because they are seen as socially deprived. Part of this process, notwithstanding that you are looking at transformation around fiscal sustainability and transforming services, is very much about looking at the finances rather than at the outcomes for people's standard of living and actually trying to reduce those areas of deprivation and inequality. If you are looking at a digital landscape review and those pressures come up in Health, Justice and Education, will there be scope for a review that starts to tackle inequality and poverty in a more targeted way? Is that an emerging theme across all the projects and pressures in Departments?

Dr Brady: That is an emerging theme that the interim transformation board is looking at. In the feedback on the draft Programme for Government, we received over 500 written responses on those areas, looking towards areas that might not be covered. Emerging aspects of the "People" mission include prolonging not just life expectancy but healthy life expectancy. An exciting aspect of the draft Programme for Government is the work that the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) provided on the well-being framework — the 10 well-being outcomes. I do not know whether members have looked at that. It is broken down by geography; it is done by section 75 groups, dependents, rurality and then by council. It is possible, therefore, to look at those areas and identify a more targeted approach. If you have very constrained budgets, where you cannot do everything, you can target those who are most likely. Evidence is clear that, among some of the cohorts in those areas, the outcomes are more likely to be based on social deprivation. That area could be explored with a more targeted approach.

The Health Minister indicated a clustering around areas of social deprivation in one of the pieces of work that he has been progressing, which is on a network for better outcomes. The Education Minister has also looked towards areas of social deprivation and at the need to have a generational shift, with early years intervention that can be seen. Executive members have said that targets will be provided as part of each of the priorities. Overall, how are we shifting? Are things getting better or worse? We talk about housing and provision of more social housing. An aspiration is to put more money into people's pockets so that there is less need for social housing in the long term. It is about looking at the immediacy of the issue and at how to improve outcomes. That is an interesting area that we discussed with our colleagues in SOLACE. We discussed whether we could look towards specific area interventions with cohorts of individuals. The level of data and evidence that we have allows for provisions to be targeted more meaningfully. Again, it will be for Ministers to provide.

Miss Hargey: So, there is an even greater duty to target social need.

Dr Brady: It will be for Ministers to decide, but the sustainability of some of the health outcomes, in the context of pressures such as people living longer globally and the number of comorbidities, is led predominantly by socio-economics. We know that people from socio-economically deprived areas have the worst health outcomes, which creates a burden. Also, within the justice system and in the area of special educational needs, there are clear data analytics that point to those areas.

Miss Hargey: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Thank you. Members, we have an opportunity to ask about other matters. We have indicated that we want to cover some of what is in the RHI report from the NIAO, and members may have other issues. In fairness to the witnesses, who have given us their time, questions should be reasonable, proper and relevant.

The NIAO report, which was published last week, has some quite stark findings. According to that report, just under half of the recommendations from the Coghlin inquiry have not been met. Do you accept the findings of the NIAO report?

Dr Brady: Absolutely. Of course we accept the analysis performed by the Audit Office, and its findings. I think that 26 of the recommendations have been met and that 11 are likely to be met, which would be 88% of the 42 recommendations. There is more work to be done, and I am committed to leading that work with officials from across the Department, driving forward in those areas. We are happy to go into the various areas of consideration. It is important that the Audit Office provided that scrutiny in those areas.

At the end of last year, I commissioned, through the Civil Service board, an analysis and update on the RHI recommendations. You will see in the report provided by the Audit Office that there were areas, which we felt had been delivered, but the important feedback from the Audit Office is that unless they are auditable, it does not deem them to have been delivered. Even though, in our view, we have delivered the action plan, there is a need for it to be audited. I am confident that we can progress the delivery of the out-turns of those recommendations.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): So, neither you nor the Department of Finance will be disputing the areas in which the NIAO says that implementation has not happened.

Mr Gibson: There are a few. We provided our most recent update to the Committee, in March. We had good engagement with the NIAO about areas where we felt, or I felt, in my role as accounting officer, that we had gone further than, perhaps, they felt that we had gone. We have had a good discussion. We have read the report, and David, the team and I will prepare a paper for the Minister on how we respond to that report. There are a lot of valuable lessons for us.

Jayne has already picked up the point about what is auditable. We have considerable resource constraints in our audit function, internally, so we are getting a more sequenced idea of what can be completed and by when. It is also important that some of the other things that are now under way, such as the recommendations on our new senior information risk officer (SIRO) forum and our people plan and people strategy, might be taken forward in a different vehicle now. Therefore, it will be important that we provide a clear response to the report, and we are working on that.

Dr Brady: Just one point, to clarify. I welcome the report. There has been good engagement, with the Audit Office talking to the interim transformation board. My view is that it is likely that the five that are unlikely will be satisfied and delivered. That may be a position where, I imagine, it will be positive regarding the need for an audit trail.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): To get all members in, we will keep questions and answers brief, because we have a few things to cover. Why has the subcommittee not met since 2020?

Dr Brady: I will bring David in on the terms of governance. Obviously, it met —. David.

Mr Hughes: Very simply, that subcommittee was established to develop the action plan and make the recommendations of the action plan to the Executive, which it did. It completed, and it fulfilled its terms of reference.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): 'New Decade, New Approach' promised ongoing Civil Service reforms coming out of that inquiry. Who owns that strand of work?

Mr Gibson: That is interesting, because we are in the process of reform. Jayne can speak to the establishment of a delivery unit and reform team. Obviously, we, in the Department of Finance, take a lot of that area forward because we hold a lot of policy levers. We operate under a memorandum of understanding, and we are looking to refresh that so that we have a broader family of reform and change, which will include many of the recommendations but also many things beyond those. We will be happy to provide further details on that.

Dr Brady: I anticipate that that reform and transformation will come under the draft Programme for Government. Obviously, those areas are clearly defined, and the Executive have committed to annual reports on those areas. Whilst we had no Executive and no scrutiny Committees, I reconstituted the Civil Service board and commissioned regular work on the outcomes of those action plans. The outworkings of those were presented to the Committee when it was reformed in March to ensure, again, that we were addressing those outworkings. Our view is that 10 of the remaining 16 have been delivered, but we accept the Audit Office's perspective that if it has not been able to audit and put in controls and checks to make sure that they are in place, then it does not consider them to be agreed. It does not consider them to be agreed until that is done. We will endeavour to move that forward.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): More specificity on who owns the reform agenda and what the reform agenda means would, obviously, be welcome, including in the final Programme for Government. I will bring in the Deputy Chair and then try to get round members as quickly as possible. Our time is finite.

Ms Forsythe: It was a significant inquiry, with significant recommendations, and some time has passed. Then we had the COVID inquiry, with a lot of the same issues rearing their heads. It did not do very much for public confidence in the Civil Service. When this report came out, last week, some of the headlines were that recommendations that the Audit Office had made were not accepted by yourselves and things had not been implemented, all these years on. What do you plan to do to build confidence on the back of that?

Dr Brady: I was very clear and upfront about the findings from the inquiry and the need for reform. There are further areas that we could and should have improved on, but the context was all the issues that the service had and the difficulties and pressures on officials. Our action plan identified that some of those areas had been delivered, but I saw additional findings from the COVID inquiry that brought us beyond what the RHI inquiry was saying. As you will be aware, I undertook an independent review of some of the findings in those areas. Some of those are for Ministers to consider.

There is also digital transformation. I, along with the Department of Finance, looked towards our forum for data management and data sharing, which was the SIRO forum — the information governance board. We undertook a review of that, taking in past recommendations and what we had learnt from the COVID inquiry and looking forward to where technology is bringing us. That has been reconstituted. The terms of reference have been agreed by the Civil Service board. I met the UK Information Commissioner to feed into that process and make sure that we were leaning into best practice. It is broader than the range of RHI inquiry aspects.

The Audit Office report identifies three RHI inquiry report recommendations on record management. The first two recommendations have been delivered, and one has not. That was whether the audit had been seen to be done. We completed the thematic audit by group internal audit of concern raising. All the "Raising Concerns" issues that were identified in the RHI inquiry report have been fulfilled. Group internal audit undertake an exercise in each Department to raise any information management issues. I have asked for it to come back to the Civil Service board and to its accounting officers to raise any governance areas that are outside that. We will be instructing it to undertake the thematic review of information management, which will close that third area.

It was felt that it was better for that to take place once we had reconstituted the board and addressed future issues, so that we were monitoring not just implementation of the RHI recommendations but further recommendations that had come out through our internal findings in respect of that inquiry. We understand how important it is to be scrutinised and held to account and to build public confidence in everything that we do.

Ms Forsythe: I appreciate all the detail that you have given. However, in providing greater assurance through implementing the recommendations of the RHI inquiry and the COVID inquiry, are you confident that we will not see the same issues raised in another inquiry that has the same findings?

Dr Brady: That is why we have put the structures in place to provide that review. We have reconstituted and taken significant actions to reform that board. I have reconstituted the Civil Service board in the past number of years. We have independent non-execs to hold us to account in those areas and to make reform. That will be provided as part of a recommendation to the draft Programme for Government, which will publish the outcomes of that, as committed to annually, so that we are held to account in an external and transparent process.

Ms Forsythe: Nobody wants to be hearing the same things again.

Finally, do you believe that re-establishment of the subcommittee, which was recommended by the Audit Office, is the most effective way to provide oversight of the outstanding recommendations?

Dr Brady: As David referenced, the subcommittee was stood down because it had fulfilled the terms of reference of the review. There is a mechanism to look towards that in a draft Programme for Government. That will be through consultation: what will be the right way to scrutinise that reform and transformation? The RHI inquiry report is really important — I do not want to lessen its impact in all those other areas — but there are broader issues that we need to address in respect of reform and transformation of the public sector, including our skill set and our ageing demographic. All those areas need to be factored into a broader proposition.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you. We have been very generous to members, but our witnesses have a finite time. I do not want to limit questions, but I may have to in order to get through the business.

Mr Carroll: I have two questions. First, Jayne, recommendations 5(1) and 5(2) have not been fully implemented. They are about training Ministers. It is shocking that those have not been fully implemented. How confident are you that Ministers are fully trained in their job? That is not a leading question; it is just an obvious point to make given that they have not completed their full training.

Dr Brady: David can perhaps come in on some of this. We have provided substantive training and induction. In fact, one of the first things that we did for Ministers was brief them on the civil contingencies aspect and the need for awareness of those areas. Further advice has been prepared to go to Ministers for consideration. That is guidance for them and their offices that reflects some of those areas. It will be for Ministers to decide on that provision. Some of the areas that were identified in the Audit Office report were for Ministers and special advisers. We have provided training material. The Audit Office report references that nine of 11 special advisers have taken up that training. At the moment, it is optional. Of course, it is not for me to mandate what Ministers and their officials do. The Audit Office does not want that to be optional; it wants it to be mandatory. Again, we provide advice, but, rightly, it is for Ministers to conclude on all those decisions. David, is there —?

Mr Carroll: Can I just move on? I am conscious of time. Thanks for that. Sorry to cut across you, David, but maybe we could get that in writing.

Recommendation 39, which is that Ministers should "read and familiarise themselves" with legislation, has not been implemented. It sounds bonkers that that has not been fully implemented. Why? That is an obvious question. Who will ensure that Ministers commit to recommendation 39? Maybe it is you, Jayne?

Dr Brady: I will go through that, and David will come in on the technical aspect. In drafting any legislation or policy, consultation, development, evidence and rigour is provided. That is led by the Minister. It is then brought to the Executive, and, again, information will challenged and there will be a scrutiny process. We could not identify through what mechanism you could prove that someone had actually read it. We worked with the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and it could not provide an inference to say how we could satisfy that beyond the broad areas.

Mr Hughes: The important thing to say is that it is not that it is not happening; it is about whether or not you can prove that it is happening. It is not so much an audit process to demonstrate that a Minister knows the legislation or the policy that they are introducing: that is part of the scrutiny function of the Assembly. I am not sure that it works if it is civil servants introducing a new action or process as a threshold for Ministers to demonstrate — . Rather, that is the Assembly's function. I do not think that the conclusion is that it is not happening.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We will move on, if that is OK, Gerry. There is a reasonable argument that it is a Minister's job to read the legislation. It is right that Ministers do that, and it is our job to hold them to account on it.

Mr Frew: Part of recommendation 39 is —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): People need to be brief with questions and answers as we are running out of time.

Mr Frew: — also to:

We have seen this week that that has not been the case on RHI regulations. That is the point that I will make there.

Jayne, you said at the very start that you are accepting of the Audit Office's report. The Audit Office report is very clear. There are five recommendations on which the Audit Office says that the planned action from the Department and the Civil Service is:

Therefore, what actions are you and the Department of Finance taking to remedy the Audit Office's findings?

Dr Brady: The Audit Office's previous report had a larger number that were classed as "unlikely", and those have now moved into "likely" and, indeed, "achieved", so that is the trajectory. Five have been identified as "unlikely". The Audit Office has not been able to identify how we would verify scrutiny. Again, it is for Ministers to decide, but we are endeavouring to identify a mechanism that would fulfil that to the satisfaction of the Audit Office, acknowledging that the scrutiny function is provided by Ministers.

The project board, which was recommendation 13, is provided under the "Dear Accounting Officer" letter. That is about having that professional expertise. In May 2023, that was updated, and it is provided in that substance. The request is that there is an audit from Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD) to perform that, and that will now take over audit. It is not saying that it is not exactly the expertise; it is actually that it is not audited. We are exploring how that can be fulfilled.

The third recommendation, which is 9(2), was about training for commercial expertise. A very significant range of training on commercial expertise has been provided. There is CPD training. There was training work from the Cabinet Office. There is e-learning training. The Audit Office's recommendation was that that should be delivered at a senior management level. Our view was that that is a line manager's perspective because they know better what is provided, but the Audit Office wants that to happen at senior management level. That is an area that we can potentially address.

We acknowledge that further work needs to be done on the governance areas — that was recommendation 32a — and we are endeavouring to deliver that.

Recommendation 28(2) refers to the audit of record-keeping that we talked about: a thematic audit across record-keeping. The Audit Office acknowledged that two of the record-keeping requirements, on the substance of the ministerial meetings and the advice provided at them, have been delivered, but there was no audit to prove that that happened, and that is what we will undertake. I clarified that audits are taking place and that records management is a standard part of group internal audit that is raised —

Mr Frew: May I interrupt you there? You say that that is happening with regard to audit and information-gathering, but the Audit Office report itself was delayed because the Department of Finance could not provide the material that it had used to publish its March 2024 report. That should have been readily available because it was published only months beforehand.

Mr Gibson: I will come in on that. We are doing two slightly different things, which David can speak to. We collect a lot of data from Departments, some of which is relevant and some of which is certainly ours, but we simply do not have enough resource in our audit teams — we are running with huge numbers of vacancies — so we have a limited audit service, and it takes us a bit longer to collate all the information in the way that the Audit Office requires. When you are doing an audit, you need a different set of evidence from that which we have in order to provide an update to the Committee on how we are making progress. It is about collecting slightly different things, but I absolutely respect that recommendation. It took us a little bit of time, and that is absolutely down to the resourcing constraints in the Department.

Mr Frew: I will end it here with this last point from paragraph 30 of the Audit Office report:

That is the end piece of the audit report. Jayne, what do you say to that?

Dr Brady: I absolutely appreciate that there are those areas. Of course, we wish that there had been further progress. There has been progress in some areas: "Raising Concerns" has been fully completed. There is a strong theme to the recommendations that have been deemed "likely" to be implemented in full over time or that have not yet been completed. The audit function enables us to give the Audit Office confidence that the action plans that we have delivered have had an effect. We are really clear on what needs to be done about that, and we commit to progressing and delivering on those aspects.

Mr Frew: OK. I will leave it there.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. There is lots more to discuss. The resource constraints in Department of Finance audit are concerning — I am sure that you would say that yourself — and it is pretty chilling if that work cannot be done.

Miss Brogan: I will follow on from Paul's question. Did the Assembly being down have an effect on how quickly the recommendations could be implemented, or could the Department have implemented them without Ministers being in place?

Mr Gibson: It is a mix, Nicola. We can progress some things, which we have done. Without an Assembly, there are different pressures on officials, so there is an additional resource constraint, but some things clearly require ministerial decision-making, and unelected officials could not take action to resolve those. As you will have heard, we have progressed to a broader programme of work on many things — for example, the SIRO forum, our people plan and the policy work — within our resource constraints. An Executive not being in place, however, and any other extenuating circumstances impact on the pace. Some recommendations we can do and progress; on others, we are a little slower.

Dr Brady: Of the 10 recommendations that referred to Ministers and special advisers, five have been delivered, four are "likely" to be delivered — I talked about the advice — and the other one is the scrutiny function, where we are actively identifying how we can do that. I will say, to give members confidence, that, during the two-year period when we did not have scrutiny Committees, we continued to commission work. That work was not provided for as part of an incoming Executive but commissioned from the Civil Service board so that we could scrutinise and make sure that we delivered projects as part of the reform. Obviously, however, some of the recommendations can be given effect only through ministerial and, indeed, Executive approval.

Miss Brogan: Thank you that. I want to go quickly back to the point that you discussed with Gerry about the training that was developed. I think you said that nine of the 11 special advisers had taken up the training and that Ministers had also taken up that kind of training. Has training been developed for other members of staff as well?

Dr Brady: Absolutely. On record management, there is a compulsory e-learning package that, I think, will roll out —

Mr Hughes: On 4 November.

Dr Brady: — on 4 November. It will be compulsory for all staff. That is not required to fulfil the recommendations of the RHI inquiry, but it came out of the work that we did in the SIRO forum after the COVID inquiry and the immediate actions that we wanted to put in place. There are further roll-outs in those areas too. As for professionalisation, we cover those which are required by the RHI inquiry, but there is a broader suite in our strategy. Do you want to add anything?

Mr Hughes: I was just going to say in respect of the training for Ministers and special advisers that, conversely, there is ongoing, available work for civil servants in working with Ministers and briefing to private offices. Therefore, as it were, the other side of the table is also being briefed in the same terms to understand the same requirements.

Miss Brogan: OK. Thanks.

Mr Brett: Thank you, again, for your presentation so far. Obviously, New Decade, New Approach committed the Executive parties to close the RHI scheme, and that is the continued position of the Executive. As head of the Civil Service, Jayne, do you have a role in trying to bring that around?

Dr Brady: That would be a decision for Executive Ministers. My position, clearly, is to provide advice, as is that of all officials.

Mr Brett: Yes. Have you been providing that advice on an ongoing basis to help close the scheme?

Dr Brady: The provision of RHI and closing that scheme is a matter for the Minister for the Economy. I am not party to that. I do not direct —

Mr Brett: No, you do not direct, but you would help advise.

Dr Brady: I have not provided advice.

Mr Brett: You would not?

Dr Brady: I have not provided advice.

Mr Brett: At any stage from 2020 to now? Zero?

Dr Brady: On closing a scheme that is under the policy direction of a Minister? No. It is not my position to —. Obviously, accountability for the Department for the Economy comes from the accounting officer and —

Mr Brett: You attend Executive meetings though, correct?

Dr Brady: I do.

Mr Brett: Would you be aware of which Executive papers make it on to the agenda and which ones do not?

Dr Brady: As secretary to the Northern Ireland Executive, I am, of course, furnished with the Executive papers.

Mr Brett: Would you also be aware of, for example, papers that a Minister wanted on the Executive agenda but did not go on to it as that was not agreed by other parties?

Dr Brady: I would be, as secretary to the Executive, yes.

Mr Brett: OK. Are you aware of any attempts in that period from 2020 to now to put papers on to the Executive for closure of the scheme that it was not agreed would go on to the agenda?

Dr Brady: I cannot comment on that at the moment. I am not aware of the schedule of the papers, and —

Mr Brett: Did you check? The reason I ask is that, in the Chamber on Monday, the Economy Minister, said to me that my party:

My colleagues Diane Dodds and Gordon Lyons tried to put Executive papers on the agenda to close the scheme and were blocked by Sinn Féin. As secretary, could you provide the Committee with details of when those papers were submitted and Sinn Féin did not agree for them to go on to the agenda?

Dr Brady: I am happy to take advice. I am not sure what forum that comes through, whether that is a —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It would be helpful to understand whether any papers were papers were provided. The Member is also Chair of the Economy Committee, and he has other routes by which to ask that question. It would be helpful for us to have that factual information, but that is not primarily the responsibility of this scrutiny Committee. The Member has put his views on the record.

I want to raise with you the broader matter of Civil Service propriety and Civil Service reform, as this is the first time that we have had you in front of us, Jayne, since the monitoring round and subsequent election. I have had correspondence from you, for which I am grateful. I have shared it with my Committee colleagues for the purposes of transparency. I know that you need to get away, so I will be brief. From your perspective, what is the purpose of pre-election guidance?

Dr Brady: Pre-election guidance is provided to officials in Departments. Its purpose is twofold: to ensure that officials are not used for anything concerning the election that would put into doubt their impartiality; and to ensure that the function of government is not used to promote or cut across any party political activity.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Indeed. That largely resonates with the guidance that was published ahead of the general election. It says:

and should not do anything that could cause their political impartiality to be questioned. It also says:

I want to show you a couple of items of public communication from the immediate aftermath of the monitoring round. This is a tweet from the First Minister with an infographic on it which says "£300 million for public services". The tweet says:

That was on 1 July. It is a Sinn Féin infographic. An online news story from the BBC says:

I am interested in your opinion on whether those tweets concerned what you would call "party political purposes".

Dr Brady: It is not my position to critique Ministers in their office. I work for Ministers, and I am under their direction and control. The advice that was provided was clear on those areas. It was also clear that normal business should continue, so —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am not asking you to critique Ministers. I am asking you, first, to give your opinion on whether a reasonable person might describe the tweet by the First Minister with an infographic from her party three days before the general election as being for a party political purpose?

Dr Brady: From my perspective, I do not have a view on that. I do not have an opinion on it.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You do not have an opinion on whether an infographic saying "£300 million for public services" was used for party political purposes. That is fine. You have put that on the record. Personally, I think that it was very transparently for party political purposes. Is it not true to say that you have responsibility for upholding the impartiality and integrity of the Civil Service? As you said, the election guidance is very specific that:

and —

Do you think that a monitoring round, which the BBC Northern Ireland news website reported with a headline about a "Stormont mini-budget", is competition with candidates?

Dr Brady: I am happy to address the monitoring round. There were two particular areas that were happening at that stage. One was the draft Programme for Government, and I gave advice that that could not proceed. Members might have had different views on that, but, in my view — I have just engaged with consultation documents on the Programme for Government — it would have engaged officials in delivery.

The prospect of the monitoring round to which you are referring was published in advance of the election being called. I think that I was in front of the Committee, and we discussed it as well.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That was before the election and before the monitoring round.

Dr Brady: My Finance colleague will be able to provide further reflections on this, but there were two areas of pressures in our budget. A failure to declare those monitoring rounds could have led to Departments either not thinking that they would be able to avail themselves of the funding or, indeed, making cuts that were not needed given the funding package — such were the pressures. I understand that the situation for all other devolved Administrations was not in line with the pressures that we were perceiving.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): To be clear and for the purposes of the record and anybody watching, we are talking about what would have been a delay of four days. That would have been the difference between doing it on the Monday and on the Friday, which would have been outwith the election time. The position in relation to unbearable spending pressures —

Dr Brady: To confirm, I provided advice to Departments just after the announcement of the general election. The advice was provided to Departments. Matters around when announcements are made or around those other areas are not up to me.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Do you think that the June monitoring round should have gone ahead when it did?

Dr Brady: The June monitoring round was in line with the pressures and the normal running of business.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Based on everything that you know now, including the content that I have put to you today, was going ahead with the June monitoring round a good idea and in line with the spirit of the guidance?

Dr Brady: It was in line with the provisions. Again, the Department of Finance can speak to its own —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Was it in line with the pre-election guidance?

Dr Brady: It was in line with the pre-election guidance about the normal running of business. It was provided in advance. There were significant pressures in the Department. The risk of not providing —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): These tweets are not for party political purposes. They are not from competing candidates.

Dr Brady: Again, I am not here to arbitrate on the PR or comms activity of individual political parties. I am here to represent the Civil Service.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I think that I have established your position on it — implausible, I am afraid, though I find it.

I have just one point for you, Neil. A letter that I had from the head of the Civil Service in relation to the June monitoring announcement specified that the timescale was in line with guidance. One of the reasons given for doing it when it was done was that the 2024-25 in-year monitoring of public expenditure guidelines — a document that I have in front of me — outlines that it should happen by the date that it did happen by. However, it also outlines that there should be an Executive meeting on the October monitoring round tomorrow and an Assembly statement by next Monday. I presume that those will not happen.

Mr Gibson: That is correct. Context is important. I spoke previously to the Committee about the decisions that I made and the advice that I provided in June. The scale of overcommitment that we have — hundreds of millions — keeps me awake every night, so getting clarity and advice up as quickly as I can remains the gold standard to which I hold myself.

The same advice was given and the same approach taken in this round, October monitoring: carrying it out as normal. However, in a very unusual step, we then got clarity that the Budget on 30 October will provide clarity on exactly what Barnett consequentials we will have. That could be a quantum of significant millions. We will then provide, as we did in June, advice on how to allocate as much money as we have available. Knowing that we will have clarity on how much that quantum will be, my overriding advice is always this: as soon as we can provide clarity on what quantum of money is available, we will, on the basis of that clarity, provide advice. That is what we will do.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): To be clear, I have absolutely no difficultly with the Department delaying the October monitoring round until after the UK Budget. That is sensible. I think, however, that it is implausible to say that the earlier monitoring round could not have been delayed for a few days in June/July, and I have put those points on the record. Given the conversation that we have just had, though, about the seriousness of public opinion post RHI, the credibility of the Civil Service and the credibility of Stormont, it is, frankly, shocking that what happened in June was allowed to happen and that we still do not have any serious consideration of what an alternative might have looked like. I put those points on the record.

Ms Forsythe: Neil spoke about hundreds of millions of pounds of overcommitments in-year. In June, in the monthly out-turn reports, well in excess of £800 million was reported to the Finance Minister — that was the estimated overcommitment. That figure was so high that she commenced an urgent exercise to see what it comprised. That brought the reported figure in August down to £769 million of actual overcommitments. We have our out-turn figures coming through from September, and they are up to £813 million. Has something happened for that figure to increase by £44 million in a month, or are the figures coming through in departmental returns over-inflated?

Mr Gibson: No. I can give you more detail on that, but, essentially, it is just measuring two slightly different things. In that £830 million figure that you quote, there are a number of "expected into" transfers. There are health migration schemes. There are some other moneys that we know about, but, because they are not confirmed, they are not reported in that overcommitment. Although it changes day by day, that £767 million remains the rough figure that we expect once those transfers come through. I will give the Committee more detail to clarify that difference, but it is not a substantial inflation from that point. It is just that items included in that £830 million figure are not included in the £767 million figure.

Ms Forsythe: When there was the urgent intervention by the Minister and that specific exercise, I was not expecting to see an upward movement in the following month's returns.

I have one further question, and it is to Jayne. In pursuing a higher standard of policymaking across the Civil Service, have you any ongoing plans or initiatives for greater coordination with the Home Civil Service?

Dr Brady: Yes. We have, as I mentioned, substantive engagement with the Home Civil Service. I attend the "Wednesday morning colleagues" meetings, which are led by Simon Case in Whitehall. I also engage with the Civil Service in the Republic of Ireland. There is a policy group. Indeed, 1.1 and 1.2, 2 and 4 of the five RHI inquiry recommendations mentioned earlier are covered in the Making a Difference policy, which is led by Denis McMahon, our head of policy. That will give effect to those areas. Again, there has been engagement with the UK Civil Service on that. Building expertise into the areas that we are looking at under reform and transformation will be important as we deliver that reform.

We have appointed a CSTA. Until now, Northern Ireland had never had a person sitting on that broader panel with experts from across the UK Government. She is now embedded in that approach. The industrial strategy will include policy development, but, more broadly, the strategic area. We are seeking to look towards east-west, North/South and international areas. The outcomes framework is Carnegie-based, and we have had engagement with Carnegie as part of that to look to the international areas of embedding best practice.

Mr Hughes: I just wanted to add a comment about the development of the policy function and policy skills in the Civil Service. The policy community in the Northern Ireland Civil Service is a full member of a wider Civil Service policy community, which is a professional connection. We have connections into the policy profession unit, which works out of DEFRA in Whitehall, and we have access to a lot of its materials and events. We also contribute to its understanding of the specifics of policymaking in our context. So, professionally, we are very closely connected.

Mr Gibson: What is amazing, when we talk to colleagues in other jurisdictions, are the remarkable similarities in the problems that we face, including staff workload, pay, conditions, morale and public confidence, some of which we have talked about today. There is a lot of commonality in the issues that we face.

Mr Carroll: Jayne, approximately how many meetings has your team had with Treasury officials and NIO since the formation of the Executive?

Dr Brady: I do not have as much engagement with the Treasury as you might imagine. My engagement with the Treasury is through the permanent secretary at the broader sessions. I am sure that Neil can provide a flavour of those meetings.

Mr Gibson: There is almost a daily and weekly engagement with the Treasury around a whole raft of matters, some of which we have discussed today. There is an almost daily engagement.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that. Earlier, Jayne, you talked about putting more money in people's pockets. That is music to my ears, given my political perspective. In those meetings, does anybody talk about the need for corporation tax to be increased or about looking at new ways of raising finances through wealth taxes, or is that considered to be off limits?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Are you talking about the perm sec meetings?

Mr Carroll: Meetings with the Treasury or NIO.

Mr Gibson: I can pick that up. We discuss a range of matters, but there have been no specific discussions around corporation tax. At the moment, there is a very particular focus on the block grant, Barnett consequentials and exactly what our funding position is. There have been no specific discussions on those tax matters in recent times.

Dr Brady: To clarify, from my experience in the Civil Service, we would not have any discussions or back-door conversations with any officials without ministerial approval of the approach.

Mr Carroll: That is fair enough: I was just curious. It is curious and, in some ways, unusual, given the fact that, last week, we heard that Moy Park is now making £2 billion in income. We have, potentially, the richest ever company in the North, but no extra taxes. I just wanted to make that point.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): In fairness, Gerry, we are pushing through the time barriers that the witnesses have given us.

Mr Brett: I just wanted to point out that we had the head of the Civil Service here in relation to the Civil Service inclusive language guide, which was produced just last month. Whose purview does that fall under? Is that yours, Jayne, as head of the Civil Service?

Mr Gibson: It is mine. It comes under personnel and our role in HR matters.

Mr Brett: It is vital that no one in the Civil Service be or feel discriminated against on the basis of their sex, religion, sexual orientation or anything like that. What does this document find so offensive, however, about the term "mum" or "dad"?

Mr Gibson: We engage fully with all of our staff groups. You described exactly the sort of service that we wish to run. It has provided guidance that people can look up or refer to if they run into a situation where any language that they use is uncomfortable or unsettling for any member of the team.

Mr Brett: The document has been sent to employees. It suggests not using the words "mum", "dad", "husband" and "wife". Do you not think that it is slightly aggressive or exaggerated behaviour for the Department to tell people that they should not use those terms?

Mr Gibson: Personally, I do not, because it is guidance. People in any employment should feel safe to correct someone if they use a term or phrase that does not sit comfortably with them or does not adequately describe their situation. I do not take the same inference from that.

Mr Brett: Some of the terms are new to me, so I apologise. What does the term "Mx" mean?

Mr Gibson: You are stretching my level of knowledge.

Mr Brett: It is in the document that you have ownership of, and it has been sent to your civil servants. It states that, rather than using the term "Miss", the term "Mx", which is pronounced as "mux", should be used. It is vital that all civil servants be treated with respect, regardless of their religion or sexual orientation, but I advise you to look at the document, because some of it is very excessive, Neil. Stonewall is on the front of it. Organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the BBC and Sport England have pulled out of associating with that organisation. I encourage you, as a Department, to look at your relationship with it.

Miss Hargey: I restate my view on the June monitoring: it was the right thing to do because of the pressures at that time.

Chair, you referred to some communication on the monitoring issue. It is important to determine whether that communication was sent to you in your capacity as Opposition leader or as Chair of the Committee. It is important that we have that differentiation during these meetings.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Certainly. I am Chair of the Finance Committee, and I am also a serving MLA and leader of the Opposition. We all have political roles. I give everybody on the Committee, including you, ample opportunity to make political points in addition to technical Finance Committee points.

Miss Hargey: It is in the context only of your saying that there is a letter, so that we know whether it is a letter that we received or a letter that just you, as Chair, received.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I have shared the letter.

Miss Hargey: It is just for clarification.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The letter that I referred to was shared with members of the Committee and is in your pack today, should anybody wish to read it. That is a reasonable point, but it is in members' packs.

Unless anybody else wishes to come in, I will, at this point, mercifully, say this to our witnesses: thank you very much for staying longer than you intended to. You probably will not want to rush back, but you have given —.

Dr Brady: I think that this appearance is number 5 . I think that I am the most scrutinised.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): There are serious matters that we needed to discuss and put on the record. We look forward to following up. We will follow up with your office and the departmental Assembly liaison officer on specific points. There are issues of concern, but it was helpful to get some of those points on the record. Thank you very much for your time, Jayne, Neil, David and Aidan.

Dr Brady: I will conclude by saying how welcome I find the feedback from these meetings. I know that they are robust and everything else, but, if we are to reform and transform, it is so helpful to get it. That is why I am offering to go to Public Accounts Committee meetings as opposed to being called to them. It is important that we have collective perspectives. We are trying to break down silos in the organisations that we represent, even if they are outside the strict governance structures. I am very grateful for everyone's input.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am glad. I hope that members will understand that our job on any Committee of the Assembly is to be robust but respectful. We would not be doing our job if we were not. Thank you.