Cross-examination in Carl Sargeant QC inquiry inappropriate, Carwyn tells AMs

FIRST Minister Carwyn Jones has told AMs it would not be appropriate for him or other witnesses to be cross-examined during a QC-led inquiry into how he treated the late Welsh Government cabinet minister Carl Sargeant.

Mr Sargeant is believed to have taken his own life four days after being removed from his post following unspecified allegations of sexual harassment, which he denied.

Last week Mr Jones issued a written statement to all AMs in which he revealed the Welsh Government’s top civil servant, Dame Shan Morgan, had felt she could not agree to proposals to amend the inquiry’s Operational Protocol proposed to her by Paul Bowen QC, the inquiry chairman. She referred the matter to Mr Jones.

The First Minister said he agreed to “the majority” of Mr Bowen’s requests, indicating he had ruled out others.

Opposition leader Paul Davies said: “I find it absolutely astonishing that the First Minister has had anything to do with determining the rules for the inquiry into his own actions.”

Quizzed by Mr Davies during First Minister’s Questions, and asked to publish all the proposals, including the ones he had rejected, Mr Jones said: “That’s a matter for the investigators, not for me. There are two issues particularly that have been mentioned. One is cross-examination of witnesses – that’s not appropriate for an inquisitorial process. That happens in a trial – as a lawyer, I know that. Second is the suggestion that witnesses should be compellable. Again, there’s no legal basis for doing that in a non-statutory inquiry. So, there is a restriction on what can be done in terms of the law.”

Mr Davies said: “You claim in your statement that the investigations are conducted at arm’s length from you and your office, yet it is clear that you are having a significant involvement in the direction and remit of this inquiry. Surely, this diminishes any integrity connected to this inquiry. ”

Mr Jones said: “I’ve not interfered with the protocol at all. It’s been in the hands of the Permanent Secretary. I’ve set the terms of reference – that is true. If it is the case that that’s right, then the courts will say so. I did not have to set up this investigation. I did it in terms of transparency.”