Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I welcome Jane Holmes, director of COVID strategy, recovery and inquiry; and Maria Hannon, head of COVID strategy and inquiry branch. You are welcome to the Committee. We are light on numbers in the room, but four members are online, and we have all received your submissions. Thank you for those. Will you make some opening remarks?

Ms Jane Holmes (The Executive Office): First, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide a briefing on the ongoing work of implementing the recommendations from the four published UK-wide COVID-19 inquiry module reports. Members have received a written briefing and the update reports published by the Executive on modules 1 and 2. To make the best use of the time, I will keep my opening statement as short as possible so that we have time for questions and discussions. With me is Maria Hannon, who is the head of the COVID strategy and inquiry branch.

The Executive Office has provided evidence for seven of the 10 COVID-19 inquiry modules, which, as you will appreciate, was a significant undertaking for the Department. The recommendations that have been received so far have, in the main, been pitched at a UK-wide level, but our focus is on implementing what will make a difference here. You will be aware that a number of the recommendations contained in the module 2 report are specific to here, and that is a reflection of our specific and unique constitutional arrangements.

A cross-departmental modular steering group made up of representatives from all nine of the Northern Ireland Departments was established in October 2024, and its aim was to progress the consideration of the recommendations set out in the modular reports. The group provides Civil Service-wide strategic oversight, coordination and assurance on the implementation of the UK-wide COVID-19 inquiry recommendations and maintains oversight of stakeholder engagement activities.

The COVID-19 pandemic inquiry, particularly module 1, shone a light on civil contingency arrangements across the UK and highlighted where improvement was needed to better meet the needs of citizens here. Since it was published, progress has been made to strengthen civil contingency arrangements, and that has been informed directly by the pandemic and the COVID-19 inquiry. The Executive have published three update reports on module 1, the most recent being in January 2026.

There are 19 recommendations in the module 2 report, some of which, as I said, are specific to here. The Executive published their initial response in March 2026, which highlighted the fact that the recommendations:

As we consider next steps on those recommendations, it is important that we continue to factor in those constitutional and financial considerations.

The reports for module 3, which focused on the impact of the pandemic on healthcare systems, and for module 4 on vaccines and therapeutics were published on 19 March and 16 April 2026 respectively. The module 5 report on the procurement of key healthcare-related equipment is scheduled to be published on 14 July 2026. The chair of the inquiry has indicated that the remaining module reports will be published throughout the remainder of 2026 and into 2027.

For your information, streamlined reporting arrangements across all published module reports are in place. They provide for the publication of Executive updates in May and November each year. The work of the cross-departmental group also includes a work stream on stakeholder engagement, as we recognise that the views of those who were directly impacted by the pandemic are essential in informing the actions that will be taken in response to the recommendations. There has been ongoing engagement with the Northern Ireland Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, most recently by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on 14 April 2026. Officials are also progressing targeted stakeholder engagement on specific modules and recommendations in order to ensure that wider views are considered.

Given the modular nature of the inquiry, we will, of course, be happy to provide further updates as we progress actions in response to the recommendations for modules 1 to 4 and as future reports are published.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, thank you. Do you wish to make any comments now, Maria?

Ms Maria Hannon (The Executive Office): No, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Again, thank you so much for coming today.

What jumps out at me first from the briefing note on the module 2 report is that the Executive have accepted 15 of the 19 recommendations, and four are still under consideration. When I look at those four, they appear to be probably the most important going forward. They are the amendment of the ministerial code in Northern Ireland; delegated powers in Northern Ireland in an emergency; placing child rights impact assessments on a statutory footing; and implementing a socio-economic duty. Will you speak to what is happening with those four outstanding recommendations? I am conscious that we have only 10 months or whatever left of the mandate.

Ms Holmes: As you said, 15 of the 19 module 2 recommendations have been accepted, and the other four remain under consideration. Recommendation 6, "Implementing a socio-economic duty" and putting that on a statutory basis is one of those that remain under consideration. There is a lot of ongoing activity in relation to that recommendation. There is ongoing engagement with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI), which has highlighted the potential benefits, as well as the complexities, of introducing a socio-economic duty. Officials are engaging with counterparts in other jurisdictions to understand existing and ongoing approaches in those jurisdictions.

So far, that engagement has highlighted the issues around the definition of a socio-economic disadvantage and the development of effective monitoring and measurement frameworks, and that work is ongoing. Officials are also considering the extent to which existing frameworks, such as section 75 duties, can go towards meeting some of the requirements under recommendation 6, alongside the potential for further legislative change. That work is ongoing, and advice will be provided to the Ministers in due course.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We have not touched on the other outstanding recommendations, but I will pause there to consider the issues around a socio-economic duty and child rights impact assessments. As we know, our legislature has not been great at passing any equality legislation or very much legislation in that space at all. Is a wider conversation taking place around how we can move forward? We do not have a single equality Act in Northern Ireland, but other parts of the UK do, so it would probably be easier for some of this stuff to be implemented and put on a statutory footing. What format would any such legislation take in the discussions? You are saying that those recommendations are under active consideration: what vehicle will be used to take those forward?

Ms Holmes: I do not have that information at the moment. I know only what is happening in direct response to the recommendations, but we can find out for you, if that would be helpful.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): No problem at all. We are not trying to trick you here. We are just trying —

Ms Holmes: I understand that, yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): — to understand what you mean about putting things on a statutory footing. I will move on, and we may write to you to get an update on those four modules.

With the cross-departmental modular steering group, is there an action plan with timescales and responsibilities? You talked about reporting mechanisms. Do you have an overarching action plan that all the Departments are working to, that you all signed up to and that you are all heading in the same direction with?

Ms Holmes: A module 1 action plan is attached to the updates that have been by published to date by the Executive. That is being pulled together with an action plan that is being developed for module 2. We have done one response for that, and that set out in principle the actions that are being taken in the narrative. An action plan is being developed, and the same is being done for modules 3 and 4. Those are being pulled together into one consolidated action plan that the Departments are working to. All Departments have fed into the ongoing work and where it sits at the moment, and that is done through the cross-departmental modular steering group.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): How often does that meet? Is it a band of the willing, or is it that everybody has been tapped on the shoulder and told that they are now on another steering group?

Ms Holmes: Given the different issues that are engaged, all the Departments are involved. It depends on the recommendations, but there tends to be a lead for each Department who taps into each Department and attends regularly. We aim to have meetings every month. It is more often than that when we are leading up to getting a publication agreed or depending on the time of year and so on. We try to meet once a month when possible. We have another meeting scheduled for next week. We have people who know what is happening on each of the recommendations. They bring people along with them, depending on what is being discussed on each one, or they are tapped into Departments and can speak on behalf of their Department. That good and positive engagement is ongoing.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I have two questions here, and I think that they are probably in the same space. I know that it was not that long ago that the inquiry reported with its recommendations. Are there any tangible, concrete outcomes from the work that demonstrate to the general public watching on that there will be a difference and that Departments will be more responsive and more fit for purpose to deal with another pandemic or another emergency situation? Do you want to put it into terms that people might really grasp and understand?

Ms Holmes: The civil contingencies framework is one example that cuts across work that is ongoing. It is being reviewed. It was due a review anyway, but it is being reviewed in light of the modular recommendations and, indeed, Exercise Pegasus, which Maria was involved in. A review is ongoing, and, hopefully, an update will be published by the end of the calendar year. The review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which was also due to take place, is ongoing. A public call for information will be published in June through to July this year. It should issue next month with a view to having changes made to it, and, for us in particular, it will, hopefully, result in changes in first responder organisations.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, so we are still pretty much at the review stage. There is not a new data-sharing system, a new computer system being introduced across Departments or anything like that. It is still at that planning and responding stage.

Ms Holmes: Yes. For module 1, there were 10 recommendations, and we have closed one already. That was in the risk register and was closed in January. We are moving to close, hopefully, four further recommendations. That is where actions have been implemented and are moving into business as usual for taking forward. For example, there has been a lot of work on the role of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), which was recommendation 1 in module 2.

I think that there are still some options coming forward for streamlining those even further, but those changes have been made. Our Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA) now attends Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) meetings, for example. There are tangible differences, whether or not the public can see those happening.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You can point to them.

The last question from me is about engagement with people who have been bereaved through COVID and people who are living with long COVID etc. You said that there was a meeting as recently as April this year, which is great. What format are those meetings taking? Are they advisory? Do those people feel that they are being heard and that their voices are making a difference when it comes to the implementation of the recommendations?

Ms Holmes: The main engagement has been with the COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice NI, and it has been proactive. We meet that group regularly. We usually try to do in-person meetings. They also provide written submissions for us to consider. They gave us detailed written submissions in response to module 2, which helped us to shape the response to module 2 in March. They have also had three meetings with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, which they found helpful, I think. In addition, more recently, they met the Minister of Health. The engagement is ongoing. Now that multiple modules have been reported on and there is more to come, we are in discussion with the group about how it wants to handle that, because it is time-consuming, and, like everybody else, its members have day jobs.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Some of the bereaved, yes.

Ms Holmes: Yes. We are working with them to make that as workable as possible for them and to make sure that their views continue to be heard.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much for, in a sense, reminding us of COVID and where we were at that time and of what we are doing now with regard to the public review and all of what flows from the inquiry.

I have a general question. The Chair asked about the practical implementation of recommendations that have come forward. Today, how fit are we to deal with a future COVID or similar pandemic? Many of the recommendations have not been implemented. How quickly could we deal with a future pandemic, should we be faced with one in, say, the next week?

Ms Holmes: I will ask Maria to come in on Exercise Pegasus. Three anchor days were held over the autumn, and there is a future anchor day to be held. It was designed to test exactly that: how better prepared we are to respond.

Mr Dickson: Good.

Ms Holmes: Maria was directly involved.

Ms Hannon: Exercise Pegasus is a UK-wide pandemic preparedness exercise designed to test and strengthen arrangements for responding to a future pandemic. All Departments here, coordinated by the Executive Office and working alongside the Department of Health, participated fully alongside the UK Government and other devolved Administrations. The exercise provided an important opportunity to test decision-making, coordination and information sharing across Departments across the four nations.

The learning captured from the exercise is being used to inform the collective consideration of pandemic preparedness and to strengthen future resilience. We were directly involved and saw all nine Departments pull together. The Executive met to consider the options, such as what restrictions would be put in place, on each anchor day. We have a further recovery session planned for June. We are looking at our evaluation of that exercise from an NI and a UK perspective.

Mr Dickson: Has there been feedback from that exercise, such as rating its success and failures?

Ms Hannon: All that material is now under consideration by the evaluation team, and a report will be published in the autumn.

Mr Dickson: We can draw from that that we are potentially better placed to deal with a future event, whether it is similar or not, and that at least there has been some testing done around that.

The Chair referred to a number of the equality issues that flow from the modules that have been dealt with so far. I listened recently to a conversation about the effect that COVID had on children in particular. Has the Department of Education or the Department of Health been involved in discussions about mental health in that regard? In addition, how would we help children and young people on their learning journey without taking them out of their learning journey, as we had to do during the pandemic? If they were not actually taken out of their learning journey, it was at least disrupted.

Ms Holmes: That relates directly to one of the recommendations on child rights impact assessments that remains under consideration. Work is ongoing on that. There is a monitoring and reporting group that the Department of Education oversees. There are senior officials from all Departments on that, and it overlooks the implementation of the children and young people's strategy. Child rights impact assessments are to help to assess the impact of any policies going forward. That group is due to meet again in the autumn, and we will be taking a paper on that recommendation and how to make sure that child rights impact assessments are better used in the future and more embedded in policymaking. There are systems in place to promote their use, but we want to embed that even further. That work is ongoing as well.

Mr Dickson: It is clearly important that we deal with what Baroness Hallett is bringing forward and that you then start to unpack all of that to see what the practical, on-the-ground implications are.

I go back to my original question: how much fitter is Northern Ireland to deal with the same event or a similar event if it were to happen some time this year or next year? Have we learnt sufficiently, and are there robust changes in place? Can you point to where we would do something differently?

Ms Holmes: That would depend on the exact circumstances of a future emergency.

Mr Dickson: It would.

Ms Holmes: It has to be considered on a case-by-case basis, so I am not sure that I can give you an answer to that one.

Mr Dickson: I appreciate that.

Ms Holmes: We are better informed, and changes are being made to, as I said, the civil contingencies framework for decision-making. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) published a new pandemic preparedness strategy in March, and that covers the whole of the UK. Part of that includes the development of the Northern Ireland pandemic concept of operations, which helps to inform all those decisions. That work is ongoing and is being taken forward through a group chaired by TEO and DOH: the cross-departmental pandemic resilience steering group. It meets regularly, and work is ongoing through that group to prepare for future events.

Mr Dickson: I appreciate that you can model for the same or similar style of event, but something else could happen for which there has been no planning.

Finally, you mentioned — it is important to mention it again today — your liaison with people who have long COVID and, in particular, those who were bereaved. I want to be sure that their experience continues to help you to learn about the things that we got right and, particularly, the things that we got wrong. For the vast majority of the population, COVID happened in the past, but there are many people in Northern Ireland who live with it today.

Ms Holmes: Yes. As I said, that engagement with the bereaved families is ongoing. At the meeting with Ministers on 14 April, they had a very important opportunity to recount their personal experiences at first hand, and there is no doubt that they were listened to. That work is ongoing. I reached out to them this morning to get the next meeting set up, because we know how important it is. We are due to publish a consolidated update report on modules 1 and 2 in November, and we want to make sure that their views are fed into that.

Ms Hannon: There is a module on children and young people: module 8. The recommendations for that will be published in 2027, if that is helpful.

Mr Dickson: That is useful to know. I go back to those who might be seen as continuing to suffer the effects of COVID or those who were bereaved. We seem to be dealing with lots of not dissimilar issues in Northern Ireland. I presume that, at some stage, Baroness Hallett will have to deal with memorialisation and consideration of how we mark the event that was COVID.

Has any local thought been given to that?

Ms Holmes: There has been a yearly commemoration event, usually in March.

Mr Dickson: I appreciate that, but ultimately — I do not want to use the words "when the inquiry is closed and we look back". When we come to that point, will there be something overarching that will recognise the event that the world, this society and the United Kingdom went through?

Ms Holmes: Triggered by the inquiry?

Mr Dickson: Yes.

Ms Holmes: Potentially module 10, the hearings of which closed at the beginning of March. That dealt with the impact of the pandemic on individuals. It is not a module that we were involved in. No Governments were involved in that. It was done purely from the point of view of people recounting their experiences of the impact that COVID had on them. That report will be the last and is likely to be published some time in 2027. It may well recommend something like that, but we have not heard anything.

Mr Dickson: Do you see a facilitation role for you in any of that?

Ms Holmes: Yes, potentially for the Executive.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you for the papers you sent. The Executive response states repeatedly that issues remain under consideration or require further work in Departments and other administration. Who holds responsibility for driving that legislative change in the Departments, and what accountability mechanisms are there if there is no agreement?

Ms Holmes: The legislative change for recommendation 6 in relation to the socio-economic duty will sit within TEO's equality division. Those are the officials who are taking the work forward with the other jurisdictions and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. The Department of Education has been working with us on the child's rights impact assessments. It is correct in saying that this is a NICS-wide issue, so it is leading it in terms of the children and young people strategy. That is a vehicle that that can go through, but all Departments will feed into that.

Ms McLaughlin: What happens if implementation stalls? That is what I am trying to get at. Who picks it up?

Ms Holmes: It will be an Executive decision, once the necessary information has been brought to the Executive setting out the position and advice on it and whether those recommendations are accepted in full. At the moment, they remain under consideration, but that is pending further advice from officials once the necessary research, which is ongoing, is done. With regard to recommendation 7 in relation to child's rights impact assessment, as Maria said, the module 8 report is due in 2027. Most likely it will have more to say on that and give more information. In the meantime, work is ongoing so that we can implement the spirit of the recommendation, which is to make sure that child's rights impact assessments are further embedded in policymaking pending publication of the report on module 8.

Ms McLaughlin: I ask because it can take so long to come to decisions and move forward. Sometimes the pace seems to be very slow. Look at what is happening in the Congo with Ebola. That is a crisis happening in front of our eyes. I am not at all saying that we are in danger of that pandemic moving here or anything like that, but those things happen, and the reason for inquiries is so that we are ready quickly. It just seems to be taking for ever and everything is under consideration. Is that a concern, or is that just the pace that things go at?

Ms Holmes: It is not that nothing is happening. Work has been going on the background to make sure that, when decisions are made, they are the right decisions for here. That takes some time, but progress is being made on making sure that the right information is brought forward so that the right decisions can be made.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you.

Ms Murphy: I will focus on module 2 and the recommendations, particularly recommendation 9, which is still under consideration. Your briefing states that there has been engagement with the Assembly and Executive Review (AER) Committee on some of the potential changes that may be required, albeit informal engagement. Can you expand on that engagement with the Committee?

Ms Holmes: It was a meeting with the Committee Clerk, and we hope to meet the Clerk again to take that forward. It is a recommendation that is not purely an administrative issue; it is definitely a political issue that needs to be considered, and it is subject to political connotations and potentially looking at the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 going forward. It is safe to say that it remains under consideration, and whether it is accepted that those changes should be made will be subject to ongoing advice from officials after we have spoken to all the right people. It will not be a quick fix, because of the wider political connotations.

Ms Murphy: Obviously, those engagements will continue with the AER Committee in that context. When are you meeting the Committee Clerk again?

Ms Holmes: The meeting has not been set up yet. We are working on that.

Ms Murphy: We had the civil contingencies unit before the Committee a number of months ago — it was definitely here last year — to give an update on the issues it is working on. It is not that I am getting confused, but I want to understand the interface that you have with the civil contingencies unit. Obviously, the cross-departmental modular steering group is also involved.

Ms Holmes: Colin Moffett and I appeared before the Committee last year to give an update. Colin is the head of civil contingencies. Some of the recommendations sit directly with him — most of the module 1 recommendations and some of module 2 — and he has input into some of the other ones. His work focuses purely on civil contingencies and making sure the structures are in place for effective decision-making. As the work we do is wider, it cuts across all the modules of the inquiry and interfaces with the other Departments. We are the coordinating body across the Departments for implementing the recommendations, because few of them impact on only one Department and we have to make sure that all those views are taken on board. That is why we set up the cross-departmental modular steering group to make sure that all Departments had an opportunity to provide input on any impacts and any way they could help progress the recommendations and to make sure that Executive Ministers were fully informed about what was ongoing.

Ms Murphy: How often does the steering group meet? Do you engage monthly or anything like that with Colin and the civil contingencies team?

Ms Holmes: The steering group meets monthly when possible, and Colin and I work closely together. We are in the same directorate, and we talk most days. It is very much an ongoing basis. We talk regularly and discuss issues and the other recommendations between cross-modular steering group meetings with the policy leads in TEO and other Departments. It is proactive and ongoing engagement.

Mr Gaston: It is good to see you back in front of the Committee. I will start with some questions regarding the readiness for a pandemic. The COVID inquiry report, volume 1, paragraph 2.33 states:

and that

I want to go back to January 2020. Were Ministers briefed at that time that no work had commenced? What was happening in the Executive Office? Who was responsible for carrying out that work? I understand that the Executive had been down for a period of time, but just because there is no Minister in place, that does not mean that critical work like this should not be taking place. Which Department was responsible for the fact that we got ourselves to a place where we were 18 months behind the rest of the United Kingdom? Which Department fell?

Ms Holmes: I think that the work you refer to that was behind by 18 months in March 2020 was one specific piece relating to vulnerable people, which is obviously important. However, it is important to focus on what has changed since then. The civil contingencies division has expanded significantly. At that stage, it was headed by a grade 7 head of branch: it now has Colin in place, who is a dedicated grade 5. He has built a very important and significant team around him to make sure that that does not happen again. When it comes to reporting to Ministers and the Executive, the civil contingencies group, which has representatives from all Departments at a senior level and all of the blue-light organisations, meets three times a year: in June, November and March. Following each meeting, an update report goes directly to the Executive. Those reporting lines are in place. Colin's team has done a lot of work with Ministers and permanent secretaries to bring them up to speed on an ongoing basis with civil contingencies and the measurements that are in place.

I refer again to Exercise Pegasus, because it was a significant event. Those structures were all tested robustly through Exercise Pegasus. The report on the learning from that will come out, and it will feed into the review of the civil contingencies framework and the reporting arrangements etc as we go forward. A lot of work has been ongoing to address the issues that were raised through the pandemic and the COVID inquiry.

Mr Gaston: Back in March 2020, which Department was responsible for our being 18 months behind the rest of the UK?

Ms Holmes: TEO had the policy lead on behalf of the Departments for civil contingencies.

Mr Gaston: Does TEO still have it today?

Ms Holmes: Yes. It sits with Colin in the civil contingencies division in TEO.

Mr Gaston: So, as it stands, that 18 months is no longer an issue, Colin is now in place, and you say that we are up to date with the UK response to any pandemic that might arise?

Ms Holmes: That engagement is robust and ongoing across the four nations. I do not want to put Colin on the spot; he is much better placed than I am to talk to you about how that is managed day to day. My assessment is that the area of civil contingencies is a very changed place from what it was in March 2020.

Mr Gaston: You mentioned monthly meetings and having three meetings per year: is there any ministerial involvement in those, or are they all at official level?

Ms Holmes: The civil contingencies group meeting is at official level. Updates are provided to the Executive following each meeting.

Mr Gaston: The Executive as a whole? It is not just TEO but all the Ministers collectively?

Ms Holmes: Yes, it goes to the Executive.

Mr Gaston: At paragraph 11.82, the inquiry concluded that:

Does the Department hold the same view?

Ms Holmes: As you know, anything that is cross-cutting goes to the Executive. The civil contingencies updates go to the Executive to ensure that there is a cross-cutting consideration of ongoing work and issues.

Mr Gaston: Obviously we have a different system of government, as we operate a mandatory coalition. Has that come up as an issue? It was obviously an issue that played out in the COVID pandemic.

Ms Holmes: Civil contingency is a cross-cutting issue as it affects all Departments, and they are all involved in the civil contingencies group that meets three times a year and produces the updates to the Executive to make sure that there is cross-cutting consideration of any issues and ongoing work.

Mr Gaston: I will move on. At paragraph 4.116, the inquiry found that:

the Irish Republic's announcement on 12 March 2020. My understanding is that, around that time, the Executive had met and no consideration had been given to school closures. Then we had the announcement in the South that they were going to implement school closures, and we then had Michelle O'Neill, in her role at that time, break away from the Executive line of thought and say that we should implement school closures. What assessment has been done of political solo runs and, essentially, political alignment being given if there is a future pandemic?

Ms Holmes: That possibly links in with the consideration for the recommendation on the ministerial code. Work is ongoing to provide a draft of the ministerial code, which Ministers expect to have at some stage soon, hopefully. That work is ongoing.

Mr Gaston: During the COVID inquiry, Michelle O'Neill accepted that she might have contributed to public confusion. On that basis, are you saying that the ministerial code, if enacted, will be the barrier to ensure that that does not happen again and that the Executive will need to act as a collective rather than having people taking political positions on issues?

Ms Holmes: Updates to the ministerial code are being considered, and they will obviously be subject to ministerial agreement.

Mr Gaston: Paragraph 9.128 states:

Why did Ministers not proactively seek the scientific evidence that was being used to justify the restrictions that they were putting in place? How have we learned from that so that, come the next lockdown — if there is another one; I trust that there will not be — we can be assured that Ministers are probing the advice that they are given?

Ms Holmes: The Chief Medical Officer attended the SAGE meetings and brought advice from those to the Executive. The Department of Health also brought papers. That is how the advice from SAGE was brought to Ministers during the pandemic. There is a recommendation in module 2 about publishing technical and scientific advice. That is one that is ongoing. It will depend on the specific event at any given time and how quickly that advice can be published, but that is being given consideration at the moment.

Ms Hannon: The new CSTA now holds regular four-nation Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) meetings and will attend SAGE from the outset of any future pandemic.

Mr Gaston: When it came to the lockdown, it was all led by the health side of things. No consideration was given to the economic implications of the lockdown. Has anything been put in place to ensure that, if it gets to a stage where there is going to be a lockdown, the economic devastation will be considered?

Ms Hannon: Again, there is a module specifically on the economic response. That is module 9. We will see what the recommendations in the report say there, if that is suitable.

Mr Gaston: When will we see that?

Ms Hannon: That report is due in the first half of 2027.

Mr Gaston: Can you give me an assurance and some confidence that, in future, the Executive will get briefings on what the economic impact will be, as well as health briefings?

Ms Holmes: There was learning as we went through the pandemic, and economic briefings were provided to the Executive in the form of dashboard statistics and advice that came through from the Department for the Economy, through the Executive task force that was established in December 2020/January 2021. That was learning that came through. Hopefully, we will build on that when we see the recommendations from module 9.

Mr Gaston: You talked about papers that were produced. Were papers, in fact, produced that sought to balance the health impacts, economic harms, educational harms, mental health harms and civil liberties impact? There is no mention of that in the inquiry report. Is that the type of information that the Executive were receiving?

Ms Holmes: A dashboard was produced that contained socio-economic data and economic data, as well as the health data. That was provided to the inquiry, and I think that it has been published by the inquiry. That information was considered.

Mr Gaston: So, when Michelle O'Neill went on her solo run about closing schools, she would have had that information.

Ms Holmes: That information was not produced at that time in the pandemic.

Mr Gaston: When was it produced? When was it introduced?

Ms Holmes: We can check for you exactly. It was later on as it developed, but we can check out when the first report — the first dashboard — was produced.

Mr Gaston: Moving forward, will that information — the dashboard — be made public so that, when the Government tell us that there could be a lockdown, members of the public will be able to see the impact that that will have and the medical and economic advice that has been taken into consideration? I have massive concerns that what we read in the report is that Ministers did not even ask to see the advice or to probe it; they were just led by the nose. I am not challenging the information or the CVs of the people providing that information, but a balanced approach has to be taken. The UK, including Northern Ireland, went into lockdown. Look back at what the Scandinavian countries did: there was no lockdown. The lockdown benefited us. It stopped the spread of COVID. Add into the mix the Bobby Storey funeral, where politicians just threw the rules in the bin for that day because of their ideological leanings.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, I think —.

Mr Gaston: Public confidence when it comes to listening to the Government about any of this stuff in the future has been shot to pieces.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, you are straying way into political issues. The departmental officials are here to talk about the response. Unless you have another question, we will draw the session to a close.

Mr Gaston: That will do, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much, Timothy.

Thank you very much, ladies. There were a couple of issues in the evidence session that the Committee wanted to follow up on. There was a question about the dashboard: is that the dashboard that was publicly available and updated with information every day? No?

Ms Holmes: No, it was a separate dashboard produced by the Executive COVID task force.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Will it be made public?

Ms Ní Chuilín: It was, as part of the inquiry.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

Ms Holmes: The inquiry has published those.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Will you send us a link for Timothy and others on the Committee?

Ms Holmes: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you so much, ladies. Good work. Keep going. It is important work.