WRU: Dawn Bowden's sexism comments not correct, probe finds

Dawn Bowden is the deputy minister for arts, sport and tourism

The Welsh sports minister was "not totally correct" in comments she made about the Welsh Rugby Union sexism scandal, an investigation has found.

But a probe has concluded Dawn Bowden did not break the Ministerial Code in a BBC Wales interview last month.

Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi had accused Ms Bowden of a "cynical attempt to rewrite history" in the interview.

The report says Ms Bowden's "misstatement" did not "amount to untruthfulness".

First Minister Mark Drakeford told the Senedd last month that Ms Bowden, Deputy Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, had requested the investigation.

It was conducted by David Richards, the senior civil servant in charge of propriety and ethics in the Welsh government.

Mark Drakeford announced the probe last month, with Dawn Bowden sitting behind him

The Ministerial Code sets out the rules of conduct for ministers, requiring them to observe the seven principles of public life including that holders of public office should be truthful.

It is a year since the BBC Wales Investigates programme shone a light on allegations of racism, sexism and homophobia within the WRU, leading to structural changes at the organisation.

However Gower MP Ms Antoniazzi had written to Ms Bowden raising concerns months before the programme aired.

In the BBC Politics Wales interview last month, Ms Bowden was asked why she had not intervened sooner.

She said that she was unable to do so because she did not have details of who was making the complaints or the nature of them.

But Ms Antoniazzi said she had given her details of women affected.

Mr Richards' report says that Ms Bowden said in the interview that "what she had received from the member for the Gower was in general terms and that she had asked for names and details of the concerns".

• Drakeford launches probe into minister's WRU comments

• Sport minister should consider quitting, says MP

"She felt that she needed evidence supported by a statement," the report says.

"It was not totally correct for her to say that that 'never materialised' because she had, in fact, been given three names by the member for Gower.

"But the minister was correct in saying that she had not been given any details of the nature of their concerns, nor any statements from them."

Mr Richards concludes in his report: "In my view the misstatement from the deputy minister about names does not amount to untruthfulness or constitutes a breach of the Ministerial Code."

Mr Richards says he believes that "a lot of what this is about is two different understandings of the same set of facts".

Responding to the report, in a written statement, Mr Drakeford said he "accepted his report and his findings".