I wish to make a statement concerning the Welsh Joint Education Committee’s announcement yesterday evening that it is going to refer papers arising from the Bentley Jennison report to the South Wales Police.

The WJEC has been engaged for some months in investigating the management of its European unit. Prior to yesterday’s decision to refer papers to the police, a series of allegations have been placed in the public domain concerning a former employee of the WJEC who was head of the European unit from 1995-96, and who is now the Deputy First Minister of the Assembly. It would not be exaggerating to say that a tide—sometimes orchestrated, sometimes not—of innuendo, allegation and rumour has swirled around the person concerned, the WJEC and the Assembly in a way that could be construed as damaging to all three. To the extent that the decision to refer the relevant papers to the police can bring the innuendo, allegation and counter-allegation to an end, I welcome it, as does the Deputy First Minister.

Now that the police are investigating the documents and dealing with them in the normal way when misconduct has been alleged, trial-by-media, which has been so distasteful, can stop. I am aware of reports this morning that suggested that a judicial inquiry into these matters was being contemplated. That option was considered, but only briefly. The police route represents a far swifter and better vehicle for bringing these matters to a conclusion.

Despite attempts to persuade me to do so, I have been determined not to be drawn into reading reports in draft, private and confidential or otherwise, or any other documents that it would have been premature and inappropriate for me to see as First Minister. That is also the proper course of action that the Assembly should follow. The test that I have consistently applied every time that I have been asked about ministerial conduct still holds good. No Minister who is subject to speculative allegations should be required to stand aside on the basis of that speculation. If a complaint of any kind of criminal misconduct is made to the police against a Minister in my Cabinet, and documents supporting that complaint are supplied to the police, natural justice requires that the police are given time to investigate those documents and carry out any other actions that the police consider appropriate. If the police then conclude there to be a prima facie case for formal action against that Minister, that Minister would be required to stand aside until the investigation was concluded. Whatever happens in this case, it would be prejudicial of me, as First Minister, to comment on it. We all want an outcome achieved by due process. It is also my absolute conviction that it would be quite improper for the Assembly to comment further on the matter.

Three reasons have led me to that conclusion. First, our first concern as Assembly Members should be to have proper care for the reputation of the WJEC as Wales’s premier examining body. As was said in this Chamber last week, thousands of young people in Wales are about to embark on examinations that will have an important impact on their futures. Nothing said here should have the effect of calling into question the professional standards of the organisation that is responsible for the conduct and award of those qualifications. The Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, last week expressed the administration’s confidence in the management and conduct of the WJEC. I reiterate that confidence now. I hope that nothing will be said here to undermine that conclusion.

Secondly, no Assembly Member should take it upon herself or himself to make comment here on documents that have not been placed in the public domain. Those documents will soon be or are now available to the police. The police—and only they—are in a position to take a properly informed view of them.

Thirdly, we should, in all conscience, have proper regard for the basic civil rights of one of our Members. The police will, as I have said, reach a conclusion as to whether or not the papers before them warrant any action. We should take our own course of action from whatever the police decide to do, and make no further comment on these matters. I hope that this matter can be determined finally and conclusively.

You will recall my final question to you in our earlier exchange relating to a judicial inquiry and that its purpose would have been, according to the notebook, to protect the Liberal Democrats in the general election. You avoided answering that question originally; I want you to answer it now. Did you consider that with your officials?

One of the most astounding comments in your statement was that you have not read a report that makes serious allegations about your own Deputy First Minister. It seems that several AMs, the BBC and newspaper journalists have read the report. Do you seriously expect the people of Wales to accept that the First Minister should not read a report that contains serious allegations about his own deputy?

I will make another point. You say that these documents are not in the public domain. A copy was passed to me by Jeff Jones, in brilliant Liberal Democrat colours. I suggest to you, Rhodri, that this document is now in the public domain. How can you suggest that the only body unable to discuss the contents of this report is the National Assembly? The Deputy First Minister is a member of this body. How can the BBC, The Western Mail, the Daily Post and everybody else consider this report, and not the National Assembly? I ask you to reconsider, and to agree that we should have a full debate on the contents of this report.

You say that these are speculative allegations against the Deputy First Minister—they are serious allegations. We have said time and again that we respect the civil liberties of the Deputy First Minister. It is right that he has an opportunity to answer these allegations. However, it is your responsibility as First Minister to ask him to step aside to answer them. Simply to say that the matter is in the hands of the police does not wash. There is considerable public concern at your failure, as First Minister, to tell us exactly where you stand on the propriety of certain allegations made against the Deputy First Minister in this report. It is your responsibility now to tell the people of Wales where you stand on these allegations.

First, I will deal with jottings in special advisers’ notebooks. As a solicitor, Ieuan, you know perfectly well that you should not have had that notebook, and that you should not be quoting from it. I told you earlier that a judicial inquiry was considered briefly, and rejected. You should not have had the special adviser’s notebook, and should have returned it as soon as you made the phone call to my office saying that you had it. We asked you for it back, so you should have returned it. To quote from documents that you should not have had is inappropriate, and is beneath your dignity as a lawyer and leader of the opposition. I have told you that a judicial inquiry was considered briefly, and rejected.

I turn to the question of whether or not this document is considered to be in the public domain because the person to whom you referred has been distributing photocopies of it to all and sundry. I do not consider it to be in the public domain as far as this administration is concerned. The First Minister and the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning cannot deal in hookey copies of documents that are passed around by journalists or councillors. Yes, I was sent a copy. I have not read it. I cannot read hookey copies of documents. Members of the opposition can read them. That is a matter for you. However, the First Minister cannot do so. It is marked ‘private and confidential’, and is referred to as a draft. It is not, therefore, a matter for the public domain. I understand that it is an express condition of that document that it should not be made public and should be regarded as private and confidential. The fact that you are able to wave a copy around—and that you have a right hand almost as strong as John Prescott’s left hand—is not relevant to proving whether that document is properly considered to be in the public domain. It is a private and confidential document, and it has now been supplied to the police. That is where it will rest until the police decide what to do with it.

You ask why this Assembly should not debate this matter when several BBC programmes have been made about it, and when it has been in the Daily Post and The Western Mail. Again, you are a solicitor and understand the concept of prejudice. Do I need to go further? I do not think that I should take it further than that. As a lawyer-politician, you should be more aware than the rest of us of the concept of prejudice, and should be able to guide the rest of us on this matter. When a matter has been referred to the police, it is for the police to deal with it, and anything we say or do in debate is liable to lead to prejudice. I notice that you are not shaking your head at my untutored legal understanding of what you should understand in a professional capacity.

Should the Deputy First Minister step down at this stage? I have dealt with that, but I will repeat what I said for your benefit, Ieuan. These things sometimes benefit from repetition, if people do not want to understand what was previously said. If allegations are made against somebody and the matter reaches the stage where allegations of misconduct are made to the police, those allegations must be considered by them, who then decide whether there is a case to answer, and whether they want to start a formal investigation. The supply of documents to the police does not constitute grounds for asking somebody to step aside. If the police decide that there is a case to answer and start a formal investigation into the matter, then Mike German has said that he would step down and I would insist on that. That is perfectly clear. The same principle applies to Tony Blair and members of the British Government. It would also apply to any other Minister in my Cabinet.

You asked me for my view on the propriety of these actions. I ask myself what view I take on the conduct of one of my Cabinet Ministers. These allegations were made before the Partnership Government was established, and I took a view and I checked them in the way that one normally would. None of the wide variety of sources that I consulted, indicated any reasons as to why a person like Mike German would be unfit for public office. I will not discuss this matter further because now that it is in the hands of the police, anything that I say as First Minister could be construed as being prejudicial. However, it is important that we consider the basis on which I checked these matters out before we formed the coalition Government. I checked the allegations out and I reached my conclusion after consulting a wide variety of individuals who knew Mike and had worked with him. Those were normal checks that I completed given the element of controversy surrounding the matter, even back then. I had no reason to think that this person was unfit for public office. Now that the matter is in the hands of the police, it would be improper of me to make any further comments.

Tens of thousands of students are about to sit GCSEs and A levels set by the WJEC. When I was employed by the WJEC to mark scripts, I was always impressed by the professionalism of the staff and confident that the mark that I awarded would be properly recorded and translated into grades. Do you agree that students from all over Wales and beyond can have confidence in the WJEC’s examination procedures?

I did not know that you had marked WJEC scripts, Alun. My mother did the same around 30 years ago when the body was not even called the WJEC; I think that it was still called the central Welsh board back then. Anybody who has had professional contact with the WJEC as an examining body would rate it highly. I am pleased to say that in that core function, its market share is expanding. People do not have to use it now; they can go to any examining body that they want. However, I am glad to say that its market share inside and outside Wales is expanding and long may that continue. Nothing that we say in this Chamber now or at any other time should affect the confidence of parents, children or future employers in the WJEC. No shadow should fall over the examination passes awarded to children taking WJEC exams this summer or in the future.

We have witnessed a remarkable transition today. Rhodri Morgan who built his reputation as a maverick backbencher on leaks from Government bodies now commands synthetic indignation about others who seek to do the same; it is less than convincing. If only we could see a complete transition whereby Rhodri Morgan, the former maverick backbencher, was willing to lead on a matter of public interest and importance to everybody in Wales. If it is true that you and the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning do not know the contents of a report that has been widely reported in The Western Mail, the Daily Post, the Welsh Mirror—which, presumably, you look at occasionally—in the broadcast media and everywhere else, then you must be the only two people in Wales who do not know its content—[LABOUR ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: ‘We do not.’] It seems that there are other ignoramuses. However, they all have a vested interest in doing nothing.

The unanimous decision to refer these papers to the police by the WJEC makes it clear that this is not a political vendetta—there is a Liberal Democrat on the board of the WJEC, for heaven’s sake. These are serious allegations and there have been counter-allegations by the Deputy First Minister about tampering with evidence. In such circumstances, is it not wise to ask him to step down? It is creating a cloud over the WJEC, though not over its professionalism in marking exams—that is a red herring from Alun Pugh and, as we all know, nicely lined up. It is also creating a cloud over your Government. We are not prejudging the matter, as you seemed to suggest earlier. We are asking him to stand down while the allegations are considered. You said that that is what happens in Tony Blair’s Government. It was not the case with Peter Mandelson’s resignation, either the first, or the second. He stood down without a police investigation, so let us not pretend that police investigations are the only reason for Ministers to stand down.

I turn to the suggestion of holding a judicial inquiry. You sought to dodge some rather serious; not once or twice but three times. What was the role of the Counsel General, who is a public servant, in considering whether a judicial inquiry should be held to get the Liberal Democrats—as we now know from this leak that you would rather had not happened, and we can understand that—off the hook for the rest of this general election campaign? That is a sticking plaster for a gaping wound. I ask you for the fifth time, because you will probably dodge the question a fourth time, what was the role of the Counsel General in the suggestion that a judicial inquiry should be held to get the Liberal Democrats off the hook? Why on earth was a public servant involved in questions to do with a general election with Assembly Ministers?

We have heard your statement today. It is more of the same from you, Rhodri, I am afraid. Here you are again in ‘not me, guv’ mode. We saw you in ‘not me, guv’ mode during the floods crisis. We saw that again during the fuel crisis and we see it every day as the foot and mouth disease crisis continues. Now we see it on a matter that involves the integrity of your administration. Is it not time that you gave a powerful lead and asked the Deputy First Minister, until this matter is dealt with, to step aside in the interests of the National Assembly, the governance of Wales and the WJEC? The WJEC has referred the audit report to the police and the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, is involved. The only response from the First Minister seems to be clandestine meetings with the Counsel General to try to get the Liberal Democrats off the hook during the general election campaign. The problem with this statement, Rhodri, is that it is inaction as usual.

Thank you, Nick, for that series of questions coupled with the odd smear, slur and sneer as usual. Your definition of giving a powerful lead appears to be my doing exactly what you say. When I did my English language WJEC examination, that was following not leading. Perhaps you would be willing to give that some thought and come back to me.

The WJEC is a cross-party body and it has decided that it wants the police to consider these matters. That is the key issue. It has referred the package of papers, the Bentley Jennison review of the previous audits and so on, to the police. The WJEC is entirely within its rights to do that. Once the matter goes to the police, it involves the concept of prejudice. If the Assembly takes the matter further, it is a denial of natural justice to say that a person should step aside at that stage before the police have had a chance to read the documents and decide what action they warrant. Lawyers surround me today. Nick is a professor of law; Ieuan is a solicitor. Nick seems to lack the fundamental knowledge that he should have learned during his law studies and which I hope he passed on to his students. The concept of natural justice is important to politicians, as it is to people outside. If there is merit in the allegations and if the police decide to take action and follow a course of investigation against Mike German or any other individual involved, then any individual who is a Government Minister has to stand aside for the duration of those inquiries. That is a fundamental principle. You mentioned that that was not the case with Peter Mandelson’s resignation. The issues relating to ministerial conduct in Tony Blair’s Government may not have involved criminal conduct but they involved, as I remember, Peter Mandelson not telling Sir Michael Scholar what he was supposed to have done about the loan. That was a breach of the ministerial code of conduct. Likewise, whether Peter Mandelson had or had not met the Hinduja brothers and the information given to Chris Smith which involved Chris Smith saying something that was not strictly true to the House of Commons, were matters that the Prime Minister took into account. Allegations of criminal conduct were never involved, therefore the matter did not involve the same set of rules. The set of rules that I am talking about here, where somebody is alleging that a Minister may have been involved in dishonesty or fraud or some other form of misconduct, is quite a different issue. That is why the rules of natural justice are so important. I should not have to tell you that, Nick. Your legal studies should have taught you that from the day that you began them in Aberystwyth some years ago.

To return to the issue of the judicial inquiry, I cannot refer here, again for reasons of legal privilege, which I think you will understand, as to whether the Office of the Counsel General was involved. The judicial inquiry question was a matter, which, as I have said, I considered briefly, and rejected. The fact that I say ‘briefly’ should incorporate all the answer that you need to know. I did not think that it was an appropriate course of conduct to follow. The police inquiry route, which is now being followed, will resolve these matters more quickly and conclusively.

The WJEC has referred matters to the police. For the first time since the saga began, the issue has been handed to an independent body that can bring it to a conclusion. Do you agree that a proper conclusion is needed for the sake of the people—not only Mike German—who have had allegations made against them, and for the sake of the WJEC, which has increasingly been brought into disrepute? The Plaid Cymru business manager is quoted as saying yesterday that the Government should play no part in stepping in to resolve what is a personal dispute between Mr German and his former employers. Do you agree? Furthermore, I would welcome your referring to the basic principles of civil liberties. Since this Assembly is constituted under the Human Rights Act 1998, do you agree that all Members have a responsibility to honour that Act, in this case as in any other? Finally, since the matter is with the authorities, can you confirm that you will make no further comment and that your full Cabinet will get on with the business of governing Wales?

Yes, indeed. The route that has been chosen by the WJEC is a route of due process involving the police investigation—the forensic route, if you like. That will cover not merely Mike German. It covers a much wider range of issues, about the management of the European unit of the WJEC, and all sorts of issues that are referred to, I understand, in the Bentley Jennison review. I hope that it comes to a swift conclusion, so that any damage done to the reputation of the WJEC or this Assembly or Mike German, can be resolved as quickly as possible. You are right to refer to the issue of civil liberties. I use the phrase ‘natural justice’ out of choice, but I suppose that it is the same issue. You referred to the European Convention on Human Rights and the legislation that now rests on this Assembly to abide by the principle of that convention. You are right about that. The Assembly must take that matter on board. We must comply at all times with the European Convention on Human Rights and its domestic version, which is now incorporated in our law. We must respect that at all times and be aware of it. Now that the issue is with the police, we need to give them the time and space to get on with the job and make no further comment on it.

Do you recall that in the House of Commons on 28 November 1991, you defended your right to criticise the actions of some employees of public bodies, such as the Welsh Development Agency, and said

If that is the duty of MPs, is it not equally the duty of AMs in this Chamber? When you made that stand, the public respected you for it. Will you now equally apply the same values to your own Government?

I could not agree more. I do not remember the occasion on which I made that speech, but it is true, and remains true. It is true that you should raise issues, which sometimes cannot be raised in any other way. That is why we have been given the remarkable privilege of having full privilege against defamation actions, as MPs do. Where matters cannot be considered in any other way, and where they are not being supplied, or where they are being blocked from being supplied, to the authorities, it is true that one should consider it. However, now that the matter has gone to the police, the whole basis of that statement that I made, and the whole basis for the right of privilege of MPs, AMs and MSPs, is if matters get blocked or if they are denied to the public, and they never reach the proper authorities, you can only use privilege. Members of Parliament do not normally have the wealth to withstand being sued by people such as Jimmy Goldsmith or Jonathan Aitken or whoever. It is only because you have parliamentary privilege that you can do that. Otherwise, you would be sued for every penny that you had and your family would be out on the street.

The concept of prejudice only comes in when the matter has gone to the police and is not being blocked. Indeed, far from being blocked, it is being leaked. Having been leaked, the WJEC board agreed to refer it to the police for investigation. I do not believe, Dafydd, that you will find any example of me prejudicing the right and proper purpose of forensic investigation, which could possibly lead to criminal investigation and a trial. That would be prejudicial. I do not believe that I have ever erred on the grounds of prejudicing anybody, who might have been subject to possible criminal action, during my period in the House of Commons, which came to an end—as did yours—a week or so ago.

Rhodri, at least some of us here believe that the concept of natural justice is paramount in a civilised society. We pride ourselves in Wales on possessing a sense of fair play, which is why we do not vote Conservative. Do you agree, Rhodri, that whatever our political prejudices in this Chamber, and whatever our personal antipathies, the fundamental principle that you are innocent until proven guilty must be upheld?

I agree. There are three stages. Somebody mentioned allegation. You cannot ask a Minister to stand aside because you have made an allegation. You then supply documents supporting your allegation to the police. You cannot ask a Minister to stand aside at that stage. However, if the police decide that there is a case to answer and will investigate that person, it is at that stage that you must ask a person to stand aside. That seems to accord with the principle of natural justice, and chwarae teg, fair play, it is the way that everybody the length and breadth of Wales would understand it.

Brif Weinidog, dywedasoch nad yw’r deunydd sydd wedi ei ddatgelu gan Jeff Jones yn eiddo cyhoeddus, ac felly y byddai’n amhriodol i chi i’w ddarllen. Fodd bynnag, ers ddoe, mae prif gasgliadau adroddiad Bentley Jennison yn eiddo cyhoeddus, gan i Gyd-bwyllgor Addysg Cymru ryddhau datganiad i’r wasg. Mae sylwedd yr achos yn erbyn Michael German—cyn belled ag y mae’r uned Ewropeaidd a hawliadau treuliau yn y cwestiwn—yn eiddo cyhoeddus. Byddwn yn awgrymu’n gryf ei fod yn briodol i chi astudio nid yn unig y datganiad i’r wasg, ond hefyd y defnydd cefndirol sydd wedi arwain at y datganiad hwnnw i’r wasg.

A wnewch chi hefyd nodi’r ffaith fod Mike German, bythefnos neu fwy yn ôl, wedi rhyddhau neu wedi datgelu i’r wasg, ddogfen 32 tudalen o hyd, o gwestiynau a ofynnwyd iddo gan archwiliad Bentley Jennison, a’i atebion i’r cwestiynau hynny? Nid Jeff Jones yw’r unig berson sydd wedi bod yn datgelu dogfennau i’r wasg yn yr achos hwn, nag i unrhyw un arall.

Trof at fater arall. Mae Mike German wedi dweud ar goedd y byddai’n croesawu ymchwiliad gan yr heddlu, am y byddai hynny’n sicrhau gwrthrychedd am y tro cyntaf yn y broses. Yr oeddech yn cefnogi’r safbwynt hwn. A dderbyniwch fod gwaith Bentley Jennison—er yn anghyflawn—yn batrwm o wrthrychedd a dadansoddiad clinigol, manwl-gywir, gofalus? A ydych hefyd yn derbyn bod awgrymu yn wahanol yn sarhad difrifol ar gwmni parchus a chyfrifol, ac efallai yn adlewyrchu parodrwydd Mike German i feio pawb a phopeth ond efe ei hun? A ydych yn fodlon datgysylltu eich hunan oddi wrth y fath honiadau sydd ymhlyg yn y datganiadau a wnaethpwyd ganddo, ynglŷn â chywirdeb, priodoldeb a thrylwyredd gwaith Bentley Jennison?

Tybiaf, Cynog, bod diwedd eich cwestiwn yn rhy gymhleth i mi.

Ceisiwch eich gorau.

Ni ddarllenais y ddogfen ond y casgliadau, neu’r cyhoeddiad i’r wasg a wnaethpwyd gan CBAC ddoe. Cefais fy nrysu braidd ganddo, ond ni soniaf am hynny yn awr. Nid yw’n glir lle y mae CBAC yn sôn amdano’i hun fel sefydliad, a lle y mae’n ceisio cyfeirio at grynodeb o beth yn union oedd yn adroddiad Bentley Jennison. Ni fyddaf yn cwyno am safonau proffesiynol Bentley Jennison. Yn nhermau rhagfarn, byddai’n annoeth i mi, fel Prif Weinidog Cymru, ddweud unrhyw beth o blaid neu yn erbyn unrhyw ochr yn yr achos hwn. Nid fy lle i yw cwyno am safonau proffesiynol awduron yr adroddiad. Adroddiad drafft ydyw ar hyn o bryd, sydd yn dwyn yr amod mai adroddiad preifat ydyw. Fodd bynnag, mae bellach yn eiddo cyhoeddus ac yn nwylo’r heddlu, a hwythau fydd yn delio ag ef yn awr, ynghyd â dogfennau eraill. Dywedodd Cynog fod Mike German wedi dweud y bydd y broses yn wrthrychol. Credaf mai ‘annibynnol’ fyddai’r ffordd orau i ddisgrifio’r broses erbyn hyn, gan mai’r heddlu fydd yn gyfrifol amdani. Ni fydd yr heddlu yn ochri gydag unrhyw un, a gobeithiaf y daw’r mater i gasgliad terfynol cyn bo hir.

Further to Richard Edwards’s point, do you agree that we are going down the road of trial by Assembly? Whatever our political persuasion, that is something that I abhor. I was a police officer for 30 years, and it was my job to root out wrongdoing. However, that is not the Assembly’s task. I plead for everybody to give this individual, whatever he has done, the right of being called innocent until he has been found properly guilty. This is not the medium by which it should be done. I gave up my remaining useful years of service and joined the Labour Party to help people and to be fair and just. We are not behaving fairly and justly by continuing with this harassment and witch-hunt. Do you agree that this must stop so that we do not demean ourselves as an Assembly?

Due to your considerable experience in the police, I cannot improve on your words. Trial by Assembly or trial by media does not serve any useful purpose.

Hoffwn ddatgan buddiant gan y bûm innau hefyd yn marcio papurau arholiad ar ran CBAC. Ategaf y sylwadau a wnaethoch, Rhodri, ynglŷn â gwaith da a holl bwysig y corff hwnnw.

Yng nghanol y trafferthion presennol sydd, yn gam neu’n gymwys, yn tanseilio gwaith ac enw da CBAC—ni allaf fi na chwithau reoli hynny—onid ydych yn teimlo y dylai’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol sicrhau trafodaeth adeiladol gyda’i bartneriaid llywodraeth leol sydd yn rhedeg y Cyd-bwyllgor, i gael eglurhad trylwyr o’r hyn sydd yn digwydd, gyda’r bwriad o ddiogelu statws, enw da a dyfodol llewyrchus corff sydd o bwys allweddol i addysg yng Nghymru?

Derbyniaf hynny. Bydd Jane Davidson yn gwneud datganiad ar ddyfodol Cyd-bwyllgor Addysg Cymru. Nid wyf yn ymwybodol o’r union ddyddiad, ond caiff y datganiad ei wneud cyn toriad yr haf.

As someone who has not seen the document—to which Ieuan Wyn Jones believes that the dogs in the street have access—I do not think that it would be possible for us to have an informed debate on this subject until the WJEC puts the document in the public domain or confirms that the documents already in circulation are accurate. Do you have any concerns that, were such a debate to take place, it could prejudice a possible legal hearing? If anyone is guilty of criminal fraud in this instance, they should be brought to book before a court of law without any prejudice from the Assembly.

I agree. I do not see how a debate on the content of the draft, private and confidential Bentley Jennison report—or whatever it is that I and many others have not seen or read—could be held. If anyone has read the report, it is a breach of the terms by which it was drawn up. That makes it difficult for Members of the administration to get involved in this issue. I entirely agree with Brian; you could not hold a debate without risk of prejudice.

If my reading of the First Minister’s statement is accurate, he claims that he cannot take action against the Deputy First Minister because it would prejudice the investigation into his previous actions. Does the First Minister agree that suspension does not imply guilt? If the First Minister continues to bury his head in the sand on this issue, as he has done in the past, he is abdicating the responsibilities placed upon him.

Perhaps the virtues of consistency have not occurred to Alun. As I have said before, when a Minister chooses people for a Cabinet and then, occasionally, has to terminate or, in this case, consider suspending their service, several factors must be considered. One factor is identifying the interplay between terminating or suspending service and the legal process. That is not my choice. It is the WJEC that has chosen the forensic, or the police route. In doing so, it has placed the matter in the hands of the police. The police must read and digest the documents, and decide what to do next. If they decide to start an investigation into Mike German, as a Minister in the Government, he has said that he would stand down. I have already stated that he would have to do so, regardless of his wishes. We both agree on that. It is at that stage that that would occur. There is no presumption of guilt, even at that stage—

Suspension does not imply guilt.

However, as I have always said, the important issue is that you cannot contemplate asking someone to step down as a Minister when the documents have only just been supplied to the police, who have not even digested them, let alone decided whether there is merit in the allegations being made and whether to take action on them.

I agreed to make a further statement on asylum seekers in response to the concerns raised in the Chamber following my last statement on asylum seekers being held in Cardiff prison. Since that debate, I have reported Members’ concerns through several channels. I have spoken to Barbara Roche, the Minister of State responsible for immigration at the Home Office. I have also written to Mrs Roche and have asked for a meeting with her to discuss these issues.

Barbara Roche clarified that it is the Home Office’s policy that only detainees who are at the end of their application for leave to remain should be detained at Cardiff prison. It is intended that this period of detention should therefore be secure and for a short period. Legal advisers working with detainees believe that those criteria are not always met. I have asked for specific information on detainees whose applications are not at that late stage of consideration. When I receive that information, I intend to provide it to Home Office Ministers.

Barbara Roche accepts that it is not ideal for detainees to be held in category B prisons such as Cardiff. She also agrees that it is not ideal for detainees to be held with remand prisoners. The Government intends to provide alternative, more appropriate accommodation. Therefore, we should not anticipate Cardiff prison being used for this purpose indefinitely and I would expect alternative accommodation to be available before the end of this year.

Since I last made a statement to the Assembly, I have met with members of the Cardiff and District Asylum Network and representatives of the Welsh Refugee Council. I also talked with the concerned people who attended the demonstration outside the prison last Saturday.

At the invitation of church representatives, I visited Cardiff prison yesterday and met with detainees and remand prisoners, the prison chaplain, senior officers of the remand wing and the prison governor. As we were shown around the prison, staff repeatedly stressed that they were bound by Home Office guidance to treat the detainees as if they were remand prisoners. Incidents such as detainees being taken for hospital treatment in handcuffs, which received widespread press coverage, were as a result of prison staff having little or no discretion in implementing this Home Office guidance.

Whereas no blame can be placed on prison staff and officials for this kind of treatment, I made clear my belief that prison staff should not be forced into this most unacceptable position by the Home Office in the first place. Prisons are not the place for asylum seekers. Church leaders share this view. I place on record my thanks to church leaders for their help and assistance during the past few weeks in helping me to convene meetings and ensuring that the humanitarian approach agreed upon in the Assembly holds sway.

From what I saw yesterday, there is no denying that the regime for remand prisoners is tough. In Cardiff prison, this is exacerbated by the conditions of a Victorian building, by on-going renovations that have resulted in the doubling-up of prisoners in already cramped cells, and by limited numbers of staff. No extra Home Office money has been made available to Cardiff prison for this additional task of detaining asylum seekers. The normal day for detainees on the remand wing includes one hour of exercise, two hours of association outside the cells and meal breaks. Prison staff accept that a minimum of 18 hours spent in cells is not appropriate.

I had the opportunity to talk with detainees during their association period on the corridors of the remand wing. In those brief conversations the detainees were more concerned to tell me of their experiences with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate than of their experiences on the remand wing. It is now my intention as Minister to ask for a meeting with representatives of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. I will report to Members the results of such a meeting.

Despite limited prison resources and no additional funding from the Home Office, I was assured by staff that every effort was made to meet the religious, dietary and health needs of the detainees while they were at the prison. I am aware that Jane Hutt, the Minister for Health and Social Services, has been dealing with the health issues raised previously in the Chamber.

Participation in a variety of religious services is available in a multi-faith room alongside the prison chapel. The Chaplain works with leaders of a variety of religions, including Islam and Sikhism. There is a choice of meals with menus in a variety of languages and there is an attempt made at Cardiff prison to respond to a variety of dietary needs. All meat conforms to Muslim requirements. There are also three language translation lines that have been made available on the remand wing, in the hospital and at reception. Efforts are made to provide detainees with access to phones and phonecards. All these measures are commendable but can in no way compensate for the loss of liberty.

During my visit, the possibility of local church groups and the Red Cross providing alternative clothing for the detainees, so those without any possessions do not have to wear standard prison-issue clothing was discussed. My view from yesterday’s visit is that the prison staff are providing as good a service as possible in difficult circumstances. The Assembly’s efforts should be directed to encouraging the Home Office to find better, more appropriate accommodation quickly.

I take this opportunity to update Members on the dispersal of asylum seekers to Wales. So far, Cardiff has received 172 adults and 14 children, most of whom are of primary school age. Eighty-four people are still residing at Adams Court, which is currently being used as a reception centre. It is hoped that the proper reception centre will be available within the next four weeks. Eighty-eight asylum seekers have so far been moved into their accommodation. A general practitioner is based at Adams Court and carries out initial health screening tests. The dispersal programme has so far run quite smoothly with only a few minor teething problems. I understand that the City and County of Cardiff Council is quite pleased with the arrangements that have been made and the running of the programme so far.

In terms of the all-Wales local authority consortium on asylum seekers, I understand that there have been further discussions with the National Asylum Support Service about the terms of the contract that have slightly delayed negotiations. The debate has been about the level of funding that NASS is willing to pay for void properties. That is an issue that both parties wish to resolve and further discussions will be held. However, this inevitably means that the earliest possible date for signing the contract has been put back some weeks. It is anticipated that the earliest start for a contract between NASS and the consortium may now be late summer although the negotiations are at an advanced stage.

There are a wide range of important issues concerning the detention and dispersal of asylum seekers in Wales. I will be suggesting to the Committee on Equality of Opportunity that it conduct an evidence gathering exercise, questioning the Home Office, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the National Asylum Support Service among others. I will continue to make statements on these matters to the Assembly as a Minister and as Chair of the Committee on Equality of Opportunity.

Croesawaf ddatganiad Edwina a datganaf fuddiant fel meddyg teulu. Mae gennym hanes anrhydeddus yng Nghymru o groesawu ffoaduriaid a’r sawl sydd yn ceisio lloches oherwydd gormes yn eu gwledydd eu hunain. Mae ein cymunedau ers blynyddoedd wedi rhoi cartref i bobl o bob gwlad pan fo’r gwledydd hynny wedi methu yn eu dyletswydd i’w pobl eu hun. Credwn fel plaid fod carcharu ceiswyr lloches yn warthus. Cawsom y drafodaeth hon eisioes, ond pa drafodaethau yn benodol a gawsoch gyda’r Llywodraeth yn Llundain ynglŷn â dod â’r sefyllfa anfoddhaol hwn i ben? Mae nifer o’r ceiswyr lloches wedi dioddef profiadau dychrynllyd o enbydus, sydd yn gallu esgor ar broblemau iechyd meddwl anodd megis anhwylder ôl-straen trawmatig ac iselder ysbryd dwys. Pa wasanaethau iechyd meddwl arbenigol sydd ar gael i’r ceiswyr lloches hyn? Yn olaf, gan fod y ceiswyr lloches wedi’u cloi mewn celloedd am oriau maith, pa hyfforddiant y mae swyddogion y carchar wedi ei dderbyn er mwyn adnabod arwyddion cynnar salwch meddwl?

I will deal with the mental health issues, Dai. In the first instance, prison officers experience language difficulties in dealing with asylum seekers. They are trained to look for signs of mental illness in remand and other prisoners. However, the language issue is a matter of grave concern because asylum seekers need to explain how they feel and describe their condition. We are trying to address that with the prison and the Home Office. On the second point, I know that Jane is dealing with what help and assistance is available for mental health sufferers in prison. Finally, I think that everyone in the Assembly agrees that prison is not an appropriate place for asylum seekers.

I note that you stated that the asylum seekers were keen to talk about their experiences with immigration officials, and that you will meet with the immigration service. I have already written to you about concerns suggesting that immigration officials are placing improper pressure on asylum seekers and asking them, in the absence of their legal representatives, to sign documentation allowing their immediate deportation. Will you clarify whether that is happening? It is easy to understand how such pressure could be exerted under such circumstances, given that these people are locked up for a minimum of 18 hours on the remand wing of a Victorian prison. Officials need to be beyond reproach regarding such allegations, and be seen to be so.

That was among the issues raised yesterday. I was accompanied yesterday by church leaders and by lawyers who represent some of the detainees. It is important to recognise that we raised these points. It is up to me to raise that area of concern. I have also asked various groups to provide me with information about specific examples, because I need to be able to take those examples to the Home Office with details about the names of the people involved and the kind of pressures placed on them concerning repatriation. Were they aware of what they were asked to sign? These are all important human rights issues.

We are grateful for your statement and we know of your genuine concern for the plight of the asylum seekers in prison. Although we may differ politically on the solution, the moral and humane aspect of this case is one that has strong cross-party support in this Assembly. I will ask some questions about the National Asylum Support Service agreement, and it is regrettable that it is delayed further. Will there be a proper mechanism for vetting accommodation in Wales and is there a commitment not to charge council tax payers for the additional costs involved? We ask that these costs should be met by the Home Office budget.

We know that approximately 78 per cent of asylum seekers are likely to be deported. In agreeing to implement secure accommodation, do you not agree that, at the very least, category C detention centres should be used and that the use of a category B prison is wholly inappropriate? I know that you will join me in commending prison officers for working under difficult circumstances. It is not the prison service that we condemn, but the policy. We also welcome the involvement of the Assembly’s Committee on Equality of Opportunity.

You enjoy the confidence and respect of this Assembly, Minister, and I know that, if you put your mind to it, you will present a robust case and you will tell the Home Office Ministers that this policy is not acceptable in Wales. I ask you to make that statement to them in the strongest possible terms. I know that you will report back to us on your success.

I would be delighted to report back if I have any success. I suggested the involvement of the Committee on Equality of Opportunity as it has experience of cross-party work and has been able to get to grips with issues without the interference of politics in some discussions. It would be all grist to the mill if the Committee on Equality of Opportunity were to undertake an information-gathering exercise and take evidence. That would assist us in our discussions with the Home Office. I have already been robust in my dealings with the Home Office on this issue.

On the National Asylum Support Service, an issue has been raised about the contract. There are concerns about the type of accommodation being used. I will take that issue forward. It will be useful when representatives of that organisation attend a Committee meeting—Brian Hartley leads the team in Wales—so that we can ask them questions.

The issue of costs for council tax payers is relevant. If the full tab is not being picked up by the Home Office, it is not only council tax payers who might end up having to pay; the Assembly and myself will have to consider resource implications. Jane has already made £1 million available in her budget to deal with the medical implications. If the Home Office wants this system, it should fund it properly.

On our visit to the prison, the prison staff were helpful even though they are in a difficult situation. We must recognise that they are undertaking their duty, however unpleasant that may be.

I thank the Minister for giving up so much of her time. She has participated in a demonstration and looked carefully into this sensitive, contentious and unpalatable situation. The Minister is right. If Home Office policy is wrong, crass or clumsy—unfortunate as that is—then it is right for the Assembly to ask for an explanation.

I know people who participated in that demonstration. It was a dignified and well-attended affair. Through Edwina’s intervention and actions, we will add to the Assembly’s status.

Although this issue is difficult, it has been exceptionally useful. There is cross-party support for the humanitarian line that the National Assembly is taking. That almost takes the issue above politics. The most pleasing aspect of the demonstration that I attended—and I think that Owen John was also there—was the large number of contributions and the fact that no party political contributions were made. That was welcome.

Ymunaf yn y diolchiadau i’r Gweinidog am ei rôl yn y mater hwn ac am ei datganiad cryf a gonest, er nad yw’n adlewyrchu’n ffafriol ar bolisi Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig.

Mae rhai ceiswyr lloches yn cael anhawster wrth gael mynediad i gyngor gan gyfreithwyr. Nid oes gan gyfreithwyr yr hawl i ffonio ceiswyr lloches ac mae hynny’n cyfyngu’n llym ar eu gallu i gael cyngor o’r fath. A oes rhywbeth y gallwch ei wneud i bwyso am newid yn hyn o beth? A dderbyniwch fod rhai o’r mudiadau gwirfoddol, er enghraifft, Displaced People in Action Wales, Rhwydwaith Lloches Caerdydd a’r Cylch ac ati, mewn sefyllfa dda i roi cyngor i geiswyr lloches? Maent mewn sefyllfa well ar lawer ystyr na rhai o’r gwasanaethau statudol oherwydd bod ganddynt wybodaeth benodol ac arbenigol o broblemau ceiswyr lloches.

I concur with your last point. Such organisations can give expert advice to asylum seekers. Contact with lawyers is very much on our minds. We must ensure that asylum seekers have appropriate access to their legal representatives, especially when immigration officials turn up. I have asked for as much information as possible to be collated about flaws in the system, so that we can change it.

Although asylum seekers are being held in the remand wing, they should be treated differently from remand prisoners held in prison. They should have the rights that we would expect if we were to seek asylum in another country, that is, access to a lawyer and the ability to talk to somebody in their own language.

Yesterday’s visit was useful in that we made progress in terms of discussions about the organisations established to visit them and ensuring more contact. The prison service was helpful in indicating that, if a governor were contacted directly on any issue, he or she would be prepared to listen to the comments of lawyers and other representatives. That was positive.

We must recognise that this is not a devolved matter. However, we can intervene to an extent in terms of the humanitarian issues involved and we will take the points made in the Chamber today further.

I also welcome this good statement and the announcement that Edwina is seeking to have a Committee on Equality of Opportunity inquiry into this issue. Asking the bodies responsible at the UK level to give evidence to a Committee is a way of bringing out the points made in the Chamber today, and making known to them the strength of feeling of all four parties in the Assembly. My colleague Jenny Randerson visited Cardiff prison in early March; the prison and Adams Court are in her constituency, Cardiff Central. She has also written to Barbara Roche, but unfortunately has had no response to either of her letters. There is a problem with the flow of information from the Home Office on this matter. I hope, when you finally get a meeting with Barbara Roche, that you can convey that to her, or to her successor after the general election. I hope that you will also convey to her that feelings are running high on this matter. Two points in your statement were particularly important: that alternative accommodation should be made available at the earliest possible opportunity, and that the Home Office guidance that leads to prisoners being shackled should be changed as soon as possible. The current practices lead to inhumane treatment and need to be changed.

I would be happy to take that up. I cannot answer for civil servants in the Home Office regarding Jenny Randerson’s correspondence. Jenny was also present on Saturday and we saw a well-organised demonstration expressing how people felt about this issue. There are key areas where we must move in terms of how people are held, if they are to continue to be held in these centres. It was indicated during our visit yesterday that it was thought that after September asylum seekers would no longer be held in Cardiff prison. However, that raises the wider issue of detaining asylum seekers. It was encouraging to see, in the opinion poll in The Guardian yesterday, what people thought about asylum seekers and about them being able to stay in Britain.