1. Will the Counsel General outline expenditure incurred to date by the Welsh Government’s legal services department into the judicial review of the coroner’s decisions in respect of the inquest into the death of Carl Sargeant? OAQ53900

The expenditure that has been incurred by the Welsh Government in relation to the judicial review of the coroner’s decision, including the costs of leading counsel, amounted to £18,732.18.

Thank you very much for that reply, and I'm glad I could get a reply on the floor of the Chamber because I did send a freedom of information request, and at that time I was told, on 1 May, that no information was held and that no budgets were set aside for these specific purposes. So, can I ask if there will be any additional expenditure in this regard and what that would be, and if an Assembly Member writes with that particular request in future that we will be able to get a reply that will be open and transparent as opposed to one that was not?

Well, I hope the Member feels that my response today has been open and transparent in giving the precise figure. I'm not in a position to comment on the particular freedom of information request that the Member refers to. I don't anticipate further substantive costs being incurred. The costs that were incurred were done with a view to minimising those costs, and so, although leading counsel was retained, she was instructed by the Welsh Government's legal services department, which will have had the effect of keeping those costs to a minimum.

Counsel General, I've had some correspondence with the Permanent Secretary in relation to the use of the transcript from the inquest and, in particular, special advisers instructing civil servants to look at diaries. Now, it was my understanding, and I've had that confirmed from the coroner, that the transcript should not have been used, other than for the specific purpose that it was requested for. The correspondence to me obviously wasn't the purpose that it was requested for. Do you therefore believe that, if that transcript was used incorrectly, the Permanent Secretary's in danger of being in contempt of court?

Well, I'm not familiar with the correspondence to which the Member refers in his question, but I'm happy to look into that matter.