1. Will the First Minister make a statement in response to today’s High Court’s decision regarding the QC-led inquiry into the dismissal of Carl Sargeant? 293

I'm responding to the question this afternoon in place of the First Minister, who is in London for meetings relating to Brexit. 

We note today's judgment from the High Court, which provides clarity on what has been a complex process. We will now consider the next steps in relation to the investigation in the light of today's judgment. 

Thank you for that concise answer, Minister, and I fully understand why you're responding to this question as opposed to the First Minister. 

I would also like to put my apologies to Carl Sargeant and Jack Sargeant's family because obviously this Chamber did not get the answers that they required and the family felt that they had to go to court to get this judgment today. This is a damning judgment, to say the least. It says an unlawful act was undertaken—that's the judgment. It highlights three areas in particular. It says the Permanent Secretary did not have a free hand when setting up this inquiry, despite statement after statement, and I refer just to one on 18 September, where the then First Minister said

'I've not interfered with the protocol at all.'

That's on the record, that is, and there are many other statements like that. 

The second conclusion of the judgment today says the Permanent Secretary did not carry out the preparations for the inquiry separately from the First Minister's office, despite the former First Minister clearly saying that it was an arm's-length inquiry that was undertaken by the Permanent Secretary and neither his office nor himself had any input into it at all. 

And the third and final point is that the then First Minister still had control over the process; indeed, he effectively had the last say and control on the final form of the operational protocol. That is a damning judgment by any measure. I want to know exactly how the Welsh Government is going to take forward its response. I appreciate it's only a few hours old, this judgment, but we need a clear understanding of how we're going to get your response to this judgment. We need to understand what engagement you're going to have with the Sargeant family in particular, to make sure that there can be a resolution of these items so that the inquiry can proceed, and that it doesn't have to proceed through the courts, and the Government get dragged through the courts again. And thirdly, I want to see what action is going to be taken to make sure that there is clear separation between the Government and the independence of the civil service, because importantly here, the Permanent Secretary is the guardian of that independence, and this judgment clearly indicates that there has been a compromise of that independence. And I believe you can give us some assurance today on how you're going to respond to us, but we need that timeline so that this isn't just left on the shelf. As I said, this is a damning judgment, and the family deserve far better from us an institution and you as a Government.   

Thank you very much for raising these issues this afternoon, and giving us the opportunity to discuss in the first instance the judgment that has been made. We thank the court for providing us with the clarity that we have now on what's been a very complex process. Clearly, we will be discussing and considering the next steps in light of today's judgment, but I do want to say at the very start that it has been, clearly, a very distressing time for everybody involved and, of course, no-one more so than the family of Carl Sargeant. 

In terms of the next steps, we'll be considering the report, and I have put a copy in the library along with the summary for Members to be able to see for themselves. The main issues do relate to the process around some of the aspects of the operational protocol, in particular, rather than the decisions themselves. So, the chair, Paul Bowen QC, does remain in place, and the next steps will be informed, obviously, by engagement with all interested parties, including the Sargeant family.  

The Trefnydd has said that the Government thanks the court for the clarity that it's now offering, but that statement—to me, at least—seems a little unclear, so can she say unequivocally whether the Government accepts the findings of the court in full, and therefore is waiving any right to appeal that it has? And if you could also clarify, because in the decision it refers to submissions now being sought from counsel in the case as to the next steps, as to the precise nature of the relief being ordered. Who is going to be instructing the counsel in that case? Is it the former First Minister or is it the current First Minister?

Now, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and Mr Justice Swift made clear, as we've just heard from Andrew R.T. Davies, in their ruling the former First Minister breached his promise of independence in a number of regards: in giving the Permanent Secretary a prior remit, unpublished, in private, on 9 November, and that the operating protocol that the Trefnydd referred to was shaped and finalised by the former First Minister in consultation with his counsel. Can the Trefnydd say if any members of the current Government were aware that a prior remit had been given to the Permanent Secretary, and that the former First Minister continued to influence the operating protocol of the inquiry, which the court has concluded was in direct contradiction of the press statement made by the Government on 10 November? If the answer to this question is that others were aware, can she say when they became aware and under what circumstances?

Now, in relation to the four aspects of the operational protocol that the former First Minister insisted upon against the wishes of the Sargeant family, unlawfully given the professed independence of the inquiry, does the Government intend to accede to any or all of the Sargeant family's requests for changes in the way the inquiry is conducted, or, conversely, does the Government intend to plough on regardless in the way the former First Minister directed? Does the Trefnydd accept that a finding by the High Court that the Welsh Government acted unlawfully in a matter that, understandably, given the tragic nature of these events, has generated huge public interest is a very serious blow indeed to the reputation of the Government for honesty and integrity? If so, will she commit to embracing a new commitment to transparency in this case? In particular, is she willing and able to tell us how much financial support has been provided to the former First Minister and former special advisers in the various legal actions that have been brought in relation to this case? 

And finally, can we please ask for the leak inquiry, referred to in the judgment, the publication of which was opposed by the defendants in this action, finally to be made public?

Well, Presiding Officer, there are many aspects of the questions that the leader of Plaid Cymru has raised with me this afternoon that I'm simply not in a position to answer because this is the first involvement that I've had with this particular issue, given the fact that I now have the Trefnydd role—I had no involvement in it previously. So, many of the aspects that you have described, I'm just simply not in a position to answer today. Obviously, Welsh Government will want to keep Members up to date on developments in the most appropriate way, and we will update Members as and when appropriate in terms of the next steps.

Clearly, we've only had the judgment today, so we'll need to take some time in terms of digesting that judgment and determining the way forward on that, but we will obviously do so in an open and transparent way.

In terms of costs, the court has awarded standard costs against the Welsh Government in relation to this particular legal proceeding, and we're not in a position to give a figure on what those might be at this very early stage, given that the judgment was handed down this morning. But you do have my commitment to ensure that Assembly Members are updated as and when appropriate, giving them as much information as we possibly can, but we have only had the judgment today.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I should probably place on record that I was clearly a member of the Government when these matters were discussed by members of the Government. Can I say that I'm grateful to Andrew R.T. Davies for bringing this matter to the attention of the National Assembly this afternoon? This is clearly something that we do need to address and to address very, very urgently. I discussed the potential of an independent inquiry with the then First Minister the day after we lost Carl, and certainly we felt at the time that this was something that would be resolved very quickly. It's taken far, far too long to reach a resolution on this matter, and it is something where I now believe that we need to ensure that the family have the knowledge that they seek and that they are given the closure that they require. We all have a responsibility, in whatever part of this Chamber we sit and whatever role we've played both in Government and as Members of this place, to bring the truth of what happened into the open.

I do agree with Adam Price that it probably is now time that the leak inquiry was published, and published in full, to enable people to understand the background, and also I believe, potentially, given the history of this, that we may wish to learn a lesson from the House of Commons today and that this place may need to take control of this process if the Government is unable to do so.

Will the Government consider bringing a motion to this place with the terms of the inquiry, with the form of operation of the inquiry, so that all of us may be satisfied and satisfied in public that this inquiry is the open and transparent process that the family were promised, that this inquiry will operate in a way that searches for the truth and doesn't operate with either favour or fear for anyone and ensures that we are able, collectively, to ensure that the truth is brought out, that people understand what happened to our friend and understand why that happened.

I think, given the judgment today, it is time now for the Government either to take responsibility for resolving this and doing so very, very urgently or it is time for this place to do that for the Government. 

In the first instance, I think the important thing will be to study the judgment that we have before us today, and, as I say, we've made it available for Members in the library in order to ensure that all Members are able to study it too. But certainly the next steps will involve discussion with the family in the first instance in terms of determining the best way forward. We'll clearly do so in a way that updates Members as fully as possible. We are in a position to say very little more today, Presiding Officer, as we have only received the judgment today, so we'll need to study it and determine what the next steps might involve.

I thank the Trefnydd.