Following fevered speculation in the past few days about contacts with South Wales Police regarding the Mike German investigation, which I regard as being entirely disproportionate in some of the media, it might be helpful if I set out the situation fully for the record today so that these matters can be laid to rest.

The most important principle in the mind of any Minister worth his salt in a matter such as this is to avoid any action that could bring, or be construed as bringing, any pressure to bear on the police, either to accelerate or influence its inquiries. It is a different matter to receive information about the police investigation’s progress, in terms of knowing the approximate timetable to which its work is being conducted. I have always made it clear throughout the investigation—and I will repeat it—that no action that I have taken, or caused to be taken, could be construed as pressurising or intervening in the police inquiries in any way. I have been as well informed as is reasonable about the inquiry timetable—subject to the above over-riding condition—rightly, properly, responsibly and as my duty as First Minister requires.

The latest developments in this episode of media madness that has surrounded this affair began last week when I understand that BBC Wales discovered that Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat MP for Southwark North and Bermondsey, had contacted South Wales Police on four occasions, I understand, in recent months. BBC Wales questioned the appropriateness of such contact, implying that its purpose and outcome were to pressurise the police in some way. I also understand that Simon Hughes has explained that he was enquiring about the investigation’s progress and that nobody would reasonably interpret his conversations with the police as inappropriate or that he was seeking to pressurise them in any way. That view was confirmed robustly by the chief constable of South Wales Police in a statement to BBC Wales last Friday, although I did not hear it.

I spoke to Simon Hughes on two occasions—recently and around Christmas—following his conversations with the police and following an indication that he had information that he wanted to tell me about the progress and milestones of police inquiries. As his legal expertise is vastly greater than mine, I did not regard speaking to him about the matter as inappropriate. I have not altered my view on that. My view that there was no inappropriateness in doing so has been greatly fortified by the chief constable’s statement last Friday.

The Permanent Secretary’s involvement in this matter arose from a discussion involving him and the Counsel General—if you recall, that was nine months ago in early June. However, it was not considered to be out of line with expectations—if an announcement was to be made fairly soon—that a few hours’ notice of such an announcement be given to the Permanent Secretary. Not only did the assistant chief constable agree that it was perfectly appropriate for him to give such notice, but he also offered to provide progress reports on the case. Since then, the Permanent Secretary has, from time to time, kept me informed privately of the progress—although not the substance—of the police investigations.

For the sake of completeness and to avoid the type of prejudice and speculation that has characterised much of the media treatment of this issue, I add that my private office, on one occasion, sought to get a copy of the press notice issued by the South Wales Police last July. The suggestion that we should have made this arrangement between the South Wales Police and the Permanent Secretary public is inherently absurd, given that it is clear to me and to anyone who is reasonable, that had it been made public, it would not have existed. The assistant chief constable would never have offered to provide that type of progress report to the Permanent Secretary on an ‘as’ and ‘when’ basis, had it been made public at that time.

I will now turn to wild allegations that have surfaced regarding Andrew Davies’s comments on Dragon’s Eye last week, which also arose in question time 30 minutes ago. Andrew answered a question asking for assurance that no-one from the administration had contacted the police about their inquiries. The question was asked and the answer given in the context of a line of questioning regarding the contact that Simon Hughes, Member of Parliament had made with the South Wales Police. In the course of this questioning, I also understand that references were made to the views expressed by two other politicians. Andrew’s response was that no-one from the administration had made such contact and that it would be inappropriate for them to do so. It is crystal clear from the context that the question was about politicians, specifically Ministers. In saying that, he was reflecting the opinion reached separately at my meeting with the Permanent Secretary and the Counsel General, that it would be inappropriate for a Cabinet member to contact the police because it would be open to the kind of misinterpretation that BBC Wales was placing on Simon Hughes’s conversations with the police.

In light of the facts and principles that I have laid out, it is clear that it was perfectly proper and responsible to have some channel of communication in order to be reasonably informed of the approximate timetable against which the investigation was being conducted. However, had the South Wales Police said that it did not want such a channel, then the Permanent Secretary and I would have accepted that. That channel was set up between the South Wales Police and the Permanent Secretary with the firewall in place between the Permanent Secretary and myself. Throughout this matter the Permanent Secretary and I have been determined to ensure that the highest standards of probity in public life are maintained. My statement today, once more, demonstrates that commitment.

I listened with great care to your statement today and to previous interviews that you have given on Simon Hughes’s and the Permanent Secretary’s contact with the police on this investigation. I must tell you openly that how the information has had to be dragged out of you today, and in a radio interview, is an illustration of your handling of this affair from the start. You never do anything unless it is forced on you. You refused to demand that Mike German stand down in May until you were forced to do so in July. We had to endure the spectacle of you walking out of the Chamber when that matter was raised.

From the outset, you have given the impression that, as far as the police investigation was concerned, you were a disinterested observer, that you would not want to interfere with due process of law and that you did not want to give the impression of interference. I quote your words on 29 November in this Chamber, in reference to the police:

‘I leave it to them to make up their own minds, in their own time, on how to conduct the investigation.’

That implied to everyone that you did not even want to know then how long the investigation was going to take. We now know that there was contact—albeit indirect. However, for some reason, you wanted to keep that contact secret, which is at the heart of the problems that you face today. This matter brings the integrity of your office into question and it must be cleared up today. I quote from the Ministerial Code, which you, as First Minister, asked the Assembly to ratify last December. The quote comes from paragraph 1.5(iii):

Your reply to today’s questions will be judged against the benchmark that you provided for the Assembly. I have the following detailed questions to ask you. First, we need to know the precise date that the Permanent Secretary contacted the police. On 29 January 2002, the leader of the Welsh Conservatives told Plenary that he had received a letter from you, which stated that neither yourself nor a member of your office had been in touch with the police. Do you agree that that reply was at best misleading? You knew at that stage that the Permanent Secretary had been in contact with the police. Secondly, as we have now established that the Permanent Secretary was acting with your authority, will you give full details on all of the Permanent Secretary’s contacts with the police? What was the nature of the authorisation that you gave the Permanent Secretary? How many calls were made, and when? What was the content of those discussions? What was the result of the feedback that you received? Were any questions asked about the length of the investigation, and did the Permanent Secretary, at any time, express concern to you about the timing of the investigation? Do you agree that the Permanent Secretary would not have contacted the police unless he did so with your full authority?

Will you also give full details on your involvement with the Liberal Democrats? With whom did you share the information that you received from the Permanent Secretary? We understand that Jenny Randerson was kept informed of certain discussions, but who else knew? Was Jenny Randerson asked to keep information confidential, or was she free to share that information with Mike German?

I now turn to the episode involving Andrew Davies. He must have known that the Permanent Secretary had been in discussions with the police when he was interviewed on Dragon’s Eye last Thursday. I will remind you of his statement, which does not refer to the context of the question asked in full. Let me repeat the question put to Andrew Davies: on what basis did he say that no-one in the administration in any shape or form attempted to contact the police about this inquiry? Anyone with any knowledge of the workings of government must have known that the term ‘administration’ included the Permanent Secretary. If Andrew Davies knew at that time that the Permanent Secretary had been in contact with the police, how was he able to give such a categoric denial? You must answer that question, First Minister.

The way this matter has been handled damages Andrew Davies, your Government and yourself. It gives the impression that you were being pushed along by events, that you were characterised by indecision and dithering. Not once, throughout this whole affair, have you shown that you have been in charge of events. You gave the impression that Mike German’s career was more important than the good governance of Wales. You gave the impression of being dictated to by the Liberal Democrats rather than looking after the Government of Wales. The whole affair stinks of a cover-up. You must clear it up today, by answering questions in full without resorting to stonewalling or half-truths. First Minister, this is no laughing matter. Please bear in mind the contents of the Ministerial Code that you introduced in December. You may not be taking this seriously, but we are. You must leave this Chamber today with your integrity restored. Your replies will determine what further action might need to be taken.

Ieuan, your assertion is that this is damaging me. In fact, what you are trying to do is to use it to damage me. I suppose that that is part of your job as the leader of the opposition, but do not try to pretend that you are dealing in objective truth with that longwinded, meaningless attempt at smearing this administration. You clearly were not listening to my statement, or you failed to make notes on it so that you could amend your questions accordingly. Nine months ago, I said that the Permanent Secretary approached South Wales Police for a different, but allied, purpose. If you had listened carefully you would have realised that. This is how the whole episode arose: we were anxious to know whether it would be possible, and would South Wales Police regard it as proper, for us to have notice, if only of a few hours, of what the conclusion of its inquiries would be.

I am repeating what I said 25 minutes ago, given the length of your questions. However, I will repeat it for everyone’s benefit. The Permanent Secretary made the approach exactly nine months ago, on 5 June, the day after I approached him in the presence of the Counsel General. It was not for the purpose that we are now talking about, but for an allied purpose, as it was seen at that time. We asked for a few hours’ notice, provided South Wales Police regarded it as proper. Not only did the assistant chief constable, who, in the absence of the chief constable, was the only person that the Permanent Secretary could speak to about the matter, agree that it was perfectly proper, he also offered to give us reports on the nature and progress of the inquiries. That came from South Wales Police; it offered to contact the Permanent Secretary on an as-and-when basis to refer to progress milestones in the inquiry. I hope that you will reconsider much of what you said. There was an allied purpose, but it was not the same purpose. Therefore 95 per cent of your questions fall because you failed to listen to what I said about the contact made nine months ago.

Since it was South Wales Police that offered to take this action, and since it considered it to be proper, you must then ask yourself would you, had you been in my position, or would any other first minister or equivalent, in light of that offer, have refused it and said that you did not want to know. If the assistant chief constable believes that it is proper for us to be informed, via the Permanent Secretary, who am I to say ‘no, I do not think that that is proper’ and turn down the offer? It is perfectly reasonable for us to wish to be aware of progress so that we could make an educated guess—there is no such thing as firm information about when a police inquiry will end, as we have all found out during this inquiry—as to when the inquiry will end. I regard it as perfectly proper for me to secure bits and bobs of information, from wherever possible, to try to make an educated guess of how long it will be before the inquiry is concluded one way or another. I hope that you will accept that you misheard or, because it would have ruined the preamble that was longer than your questions, you did not understand what I said about how this matter arose on 4 June and 5 June, nine months ago. Your failure in paying attention to detail in listening to what I said means that your bullets, such as they are, seem to have disappeared into the ether, going around, and not at, this administration. If you did pay more attention to detail, I would be happy to answer in writing any other questions you may have.

That is an astonishing reply, First Minister. I did not, at any stage, make allegations about the propriety of the contact made by the Permanent Secretary, or yourself, with the police. That was not the issue. I repeat that I did read your statement before asking questions; they were entirely proper and given that you have failed to provide information in your answers, I must put my questions to you in detail in writing. If you were satisfied that there was nothing wrong with the Permanent Secretary contacting the police, why did you try to hide that fact in your letter to Nick Bourne? For example, why did you say that no-one in your office had been in touch with the police when you knew that the Permanent Secretary had? Why did Andrew Davies have to say that the administration, in no shape or form, had contacted the police when he knew that the Permanent Secretary had? At best, that is a misleading statement. You have a responsibility to this Assembly to clear up that misunderstanding. Unless you do so, you stand charged.

Ieuan, you are in Dolgellau quarter session mood today, are you not? You should think seriously about the remark ‘charged’ and I give you an opportunity to withdraw it. I see that you will not. I therefore realise where you are coming from–you are playing election politics with no interest whatsoever in the truth. You asked me whether anyone in my office had been in touch with the police and you mentioned my letter to Nick Bourne. That relates to my office, which is not the Permanent Secretary’s office. My office includes anyone who works directly for me. That is an important point because I have already apologised and said that I forgot that, on one occasion in mid July, my Private Secretary contacted South Wales Police to find out the contents of its press release on this matter. Therefore, I stand corrected on the fact that I forgot to mention that someone in my office attempted to get public information in the form of a public press notice that was already in the public domain.

No-one else would assume that it was improper for someone, such as the Permanent Secretary, to use the channel of communication opened on 4 or 5 June as a result of it being offered by South Wales Police. It thought that that was appropriate. The question then arises as to what you think Andrew Davies meant. You said that you were going to interpret it in the best possible light but, in fact, you have done so in the worst possible light. If you were answering questions that followed questions that only dealt with politicians, namely Cabinet Ministers, then that is the answer that you would provide. Andrew’s answer related to that. You are choosing to interpret it in a way that you believe is damaging because your job is to damage, but I am afraid that you have missed the point.

My job is not to damage but, as Assembly Members, we want this matter to be dealt with properly, therefore questions need to be answered properly. I support your basic position and have no doubt that no attempt was made to influence South Wales Police in its investigation. Anyone who knows the South Wales Police will know that any such action whether by you, Simon Hughes, or the Permanent Secretary, would have been unsuccessful. Therefore, you are absolutely correct in asserting that. Furthermore, as far as the Permanent Secretary is concerned, I see nothing improper, in any way, with the arrangement that was set-up, and anyone who has worked with Jon Shortridge will know that he is a man of impeccable integrity and would not be used in any way. Everything that he did was, as we now know, undertaken with your approval and prior agreement.

However, what concerns me, and what I still do not understand—and I listened carefully to your statement—is why this arrangement, which is perfectly proper and responsible as you said, had to remain private. In your verbatim statement, which was added to your prepared statement, you said that the arrangement had to remain confidential because South Wales Police did not allow it to be made public. I am afraid that I cannot square that with your earlier statement because, if the arrangement was perfectly proper when it was private, how could it then be improper when it was public?

I answered that in my statement because I anticipated the question. Ieuan asked it twice, but because he did not want to listen to what I said, I am afraid that he missed the mark again.

Imagine the Permanent Secretary talking to the assistant chief constable nine months ago and the latter not only saying that he thought that it would be appropriate to give us a few hours warning, if their inquiries had reached a conclusion, he also offered to give him progress reports. Had the Permanent Secretary then said that that was a nice offer, but did the assistant chief constable realise that the First Minister would have to announce that to the Assembly, you all know what the answer would have been. The arrangement would then have fallen because there would have been a hue and cry about the Permanent Secretary passing information on a milestone in the investigation to me every three or six months. There would be questions every Tuesday asking me what contact I had had with the Permanent Secretary, and what contact had the Permanent Secretary had with the assistant chief constable, and so on. Therefore, to have received and accepted that offer from the assistant chief constable and then made it public would have rendered the offer meaningless. Either you accept the offer to receive progress reports from the assistant chief constable and keep it confidential, or you say that there is not a deal because it must be made public.

I know a politician who would have found your statement a total whitewash and quite outrageous, namely Rhodri Morgan mark one—the old Rhodri Morgan—who would have seen that in no way did your statement answer questions about evasiveness and duplicity.

I wrote a letter to you, as was mentioned, at the end of January in which I stated in reference to Andrew Davies:

The ‘statement’ was that the matter was, apparently, in the home straight—

You replied:

At best, that is evasive, and, as has already been said, if you had nothing to hide and if all this is as humdrum and mundane as you suggest, why were you not upfront then? Why, at least, did you not seek to share the position on Privy Council terms with the leaders of other political parties? Your reply was clearly misleading.

Before I address the issue of Andrew Davies’s statement—on which your statement today has been erroneous and inaccurate—I would like to know with whom the Permanent Secretary shared these briefings? That is important. We know that you were privy to the information; that has been admitted. We know from the Liberal Democrats’ office that their chief executive, Chris Lines, was aware of progress. He is not even an Assembly Member, let alone a member of the Cabinet. We also know that Jenny Randerson was aware of progress. Was there a private briefing with the Liberal Democrats or was the information shared with other Cabinet members? Carwyn Jones suggested to the press this morning that there were progress reports. If that is the case, Andrew Davies was certainly aware—

That is absolutely wrong. You were at my meeting with the press this morning, were you?

That was put to me by members of the press this morning. They have a record of what was said, if you want to contest that. Let the First Minister answer the question, he is quite able to look after himself, Carwyn. You are not in his shoes yet. The First Minister is able to say which members of the Cabinet knew about the investigation. Was the information shared with other Members? We know that it was shared with the Liberal Democrat Cabinet member. If this matter was not in the party-political domain, why would it be the case that if shared with one Liberal Democrat Cabinet member, it could not be shared with the other Labour members? If he contests that, it is a matter of concern for the good governance of Wales, but I will leave him to answer that question.

Your statement today was inaccurate because you said that Andrew’s response was that no-one in the administration had had such contact with the police; that was not his response. He said that in no way, shape or form—not at all—had the administration contacted the police. He went on to say that it was not something that they would have done. That is not what your statement says; it misrepresents the position. If he knew that these contacts were going on, it was a deceptive and misleading response. I would like you to deal with that, if he is unable to do so. I believe that we will need a statement from the Minister for Economic Development, perhaps on Thursday, as to precisely what he intended when he gave that misleading response.

The impression has been given, First Minister, that your coalition with the Liberal Democrats is paramount and that Mike German’s presence in your Cabinet is more important than the good governance of Wales. Why, if that is not the case, has everything been organised with the result that you have been unable to keep the Assembly properly briefed on the progress of this investigation? You have sought to play Holy Joe time and time again, and to give the impression that you had nothing to do with this investigation, and that it would take as long as it would take. Now we know that you were behind the scenes, receiving briefings from your agent, the Permanent Secretary, on what was happening. You have misled us—there is no question of that. Now your reputation and integrity is on the line and it is time for you to come clean with the Assembly, on behalf of Andrew Davies and your entire administration.

Nick, I could have taken you seriously if you had not thrown that point in about the Lib Dems and the administration. That is a party-political point that you made as the leader of an opposition party. It has nothing to do with my statement. You are simply seeking to make party-political capital.

Did you brief Jenny Randerson?

I will come on to answering the questions; it is just a matter of your integrity in attempting to gain party-political advantage by throwing that point in among your actual questions.

As far as I can recall—I understand that the Permanent Secretary also briefed Jenny Randerson—no other Cabinet Minister received any briefings to that effect. As I mentioned in my answer to Ieuan, part of my general duty was to collect as much information, from any available source, as to the length of time that the investigation was going to take. I sought to do that. However, I emphasise what I have always said on this issue as you have forgotten it—you did not refer to this, so you clearly were not listening or else you accept that it was inconvenient for you to remember what I said when you asked your question—that our actions and the administration’s conduct in respect of this affair have always been based on not saying nor doing anything which could be construed as bringing pressure to bear on South Wales Police as to the outcome or length of time that it would take them to complete their inquiries. That is the important principle that I have always enunciated. I am sure that you will remember this phrase and that you will be happy to concede that you remember it, because I have trotted it out so often: South Wales Police must be given the time and space to complete their inquires in the way in which they wish to do so. You recall me saying that, do you not?

That is not the issue.

But you recall me saying it, do you not?

We have adhered to that principle throughout and I continue to enunciate it today. There has been nothing in our exchanges today, in the content of the statement, or in Ieuan and Nick’s attempts to change the issue, which in any way alters the fundamental principle that we adhered to. Whatever time South Wales Police want or need to complete their inquires, they must be able to get on with it without feeling the hot breath of pressure from the administration to do it differently or quicker. It is up to them, and we must be careful in how we conduct ourselves, to ensure that the police do not feel pressurised or that they could not misconstrue anything we say or do as bringing pressure to bear on them. That is why I repeat that what happened nine months ago was not sought by us. The contact with South Wales Police was made for a different but allied purpose, and I cannot stress it too often that we sought notice of the conclusion of the inquiries. South Wales Police’s representative said that that was proper, and furthermore, that he would be happy to give us progress reports on how the inquiry was going.

I notice that the First Minister has chosen to answer, I think, one out of several questions that I put to him, and he has sought to get me to answer some questions of his own. However, let us return to what matters. First, he says that he is not sure who in the Cabinet knew about it. He knows, it seems, that Jenny Randerson did and then he accuses me of suggesting that this is somehow about supporting the Liberal Democrats. She is the only Liberal Democrat member of the Cabinet. Did other members of the Cabinet know about it?

Did Andrew Davies really not know that the Permanent Secretary was in touch with the police? You need to be clear about that. If he did not know about that, it puts a different complexion on what he said on the Dragon’s Eye programme. However, if he knew, you must come back to the precise wording of what he said on that programme. You must admit that what was said was misleading and apologise for it. It was deeply misleading at the very least—some would say more—if he knew that contact was being made through your agent, the Permanent Secretary, on behalf of the administration.

The First Minister has not referred to his letter. You must know about that. In response to my letter in January asking whether there was direct or indirect contact with the police, why were you unable to come clean if there was nothing to hide and say that there was contact through the Permanent Secretary at that stage relating to this investigation? You are right to suggest that this is not a party political issue; I have not sought to make it so. This issue affects the administration’s integrity. It goes far wider than that, as we know from Ron Davies’s comments. However, the First Minister needs to clear up the points that remain unanswered from the first set of questions that I asked less than five minutes ago.

I cannot say with certainty today whether other Cabinet members knew that the Permanent Secretary had this arrangement with the assistant chief constable. I do not believe so, but I will write to you if I am wrong. That is all that I can do; I cannot say that all six other Cabinet members did not know. I cannot be certain of my reply on this matter, so I hope that you will forgive me if I write to you if I am wrong. I believe that they did not know, but I will write to you if I am wrong.

Your letter, Nick, enquired about what Andrew had said at the press briefing and what was the basis of his use of the phrase ‘in the home straight’. It went on to say that you did not think that it was possible for that statement to have been made without direct or indirect information from South Wales Police. It was based on many different sources, not solely on one source of information, such as the Permanent Secretary’s briefing. Therefore, it was perfectly proper to write to you about the terms on which you were challenging me, namely whether we had been in touch with South Wales Police to get information. That was not the case. Andrew’s press briefing was based on what I had told him, and what I had gathered from many different sources. I do not know how you can say with a straight face that this is about the Assembly, not about party political advantage, after using phrases such as ‘Holy Joe’.

I will say a word for the ordinary people here and those outside the Assembly. They must be concerned about what they are hearing about this apparent cosying-up between the Executive and the Liberal Democrats, amazingly with the assistance of the south Wales constabulary. There must be thousands of people in Wales, and outside, under investigation for alleged offences. They must be wondering whether prominent members of the Liberal Democrats and the Permanent Secretary of the Government of Wales will telephone or meet the constabulary to ask questions about their cases and to inquire about progress. Having heard what we have heard and seen what we have seen, some would say that this stinks and borders on perversion of the course of justice, particularly for a favoured individual. That is what people outside are seeing. You have just answered in part the question that I wanted to ask, namely when was the Cabinet told of the arrangement for the Permanent Secretary to inquire continually about the German case? Who in the Cabinet was told and when? Can you assure the Assembly today that no future contact will be made with the south Wales constabulary by any Cabinet member or any civil servant on this case?

I rebut your comments about perversion of the course of justice. That is an extraordinary allegation. If there were any question of that, it is unlikely that the assistant chief constable would have offered this arrangement to the Permanent Secretary, when it was not asked for. The suggestion that he would engage in conduct off his own bat that could be construed as a perversion of the course of justice is bizarre. On whether the Cabinet was told about this, I do not recall any discussion of this matter in the Cabinet. It was never on the Cabinet agenda. I do not believe that it ever arose in a Cabinet meeting.

On the general point that you make about the circumstances in which the Permanent Secretary would intervene on a matter that relates to an ordinary individual who is being investigated, it is always possible to make these comparisons. However, how relevant are they? This was a particular Cabinet issue and we asked whether we could be given a couple of hours’ notice on developments. The police then offered to give us progress reports because they believed that it was proper for them to do that. That must be seen in its own right, separate to the contact that was made around nine months ago. You cannot relate the matter to any other investigation into any other individual in Wales.

With reference to my comment, I said that the matter borders on what appears to be a perversion of the course of justice—[Interruption.] I have it written down. Furthermore, I will meet with anybody from any party outside the Chamber on a public platform to discuss what I have said here today. I will ask the people what they think about this matter.

Andrew Davies said on Dragon’s Eye that the administration had never contacted the police directly. He was challenged on that because he implied that someone might have contacted the police indirectly. The interviewer, David Williams, asked for an assurance that nobody from the administration had contacted the police in any shape or form. Andrew Davies said that nobody had. Was he ignorant of the Permanent Secretary’s approach to the police or was he under orders to keep it secret?

I answered that question in reply to Nick Bourne. You recall Andrew Davies’s words correctly. Nick rearranged them conveniently for the purposes of his non-existent case. Once you repeat the quote from the programme, it becomes clear in the context that the question was understood to refer to politicians because all the previous questions had been about politicians. Simon Hughes and two other MPs had been mentioned previously. It is clear that that was how the question was interpreted. Therefore, it seems to be a proper and clear answer.

If people have an evil mind or are members of the opposition attempting to capitalise on a situation, the question is interpreted differently. You can choose to interpret the word, ‘administration’, as referring to people other than Cabinet Members. However, it was clear to Andrew, and to others, that when he was asked the question in the context of previous discussions about other politicians, that it referred to politicians. That is why he said that there had been no such contact.

I associate myself with your response to Peter Law’s comments. Do you also agree with the words of Sir Tony Burden, chief constable of South Wales Police, that it is absolute nonsense to suggest that there has been any attempt to interfere in the investigative process and that any inquiries that you are aware of were on issues of timescale only? The public must decide whether it believes the opposition’s smears or the words of Sir Tony Burden.

Both your comments are correct. I said that the chief constable’s rebuttal was ‘robust’. Now that you have repeated what he said—I did not have the advantage of seeing it myself although it was described to me as being robust—what you said makes it sound even more robust. It was a complete and utter demolition of the attempt to imply that what has happened could be construed by any reasonable person, or anybody that did not have the job of being an opposition party member attempting to put the knife into the administration, as being unreasonable. The situation can only be construed in one way by reasonable people, namely that no pressure was put on the police, and nothing was done that could be construed as pressure, regarding the inquiries made about timescale or the information offered to us about timescale by South Wales Police.

Byddai’n ddiddorol canfod pwy a roddodd wybod i’r BBC am alwadau Simon Hughes. Yr wyf am ofyn cwestiwn am ei alwadau.

Ar Dragon’s Eye, dywedodd Simon Hughes ei fod wedi cysylltu â’r heddlu bedair gwaith am ei fod yn pryderu am arafwch yr ymholiadau a’r ffaith eu bod yn llusgo ac, i bob golwg, yn troi yn yr unfan. A gytuna Rhodri Morgan y byddai pedair galwad ffôn i sôn am hynny wedi dwyn pwysau ar yr heddlu i’w siapo hi a phrysuro’r ymholiadau? A yw, neu a fu, y Prif Weinidog yn rhannu pryderon Simon Hughes ac a fu’r ddau ohonynt yn trafod y mater hwn? Beth arall y buont yn ei drafod, o gofio honiad Simon Hughes mai rhan fach o’r sgwrs oedd ei gyswllt â’r heddlu? Dywedodd Simon Hughes hefyd ar Dragon’s Eye ei fod wedi dweud wrth yr heddlu na fyddai’n trosglwyddo unrhyw wybodaeth a gawsai o’r sgyrsiau hynny i neb. A wnewch chi fod yn hollol agored a chlir ynglŷn â’r materion hyn er mwyn inni gyd ddeall natur a pherwyl y cysylltiad rhyngoch chi a Simon Hughes, a ddywedodd hefyd nad oedd ganddo ddiddordeb yn lles ei blaid ei hun nac yn lles aelodau’r blaid yng Nghymru?

Ni welais Dragon’s Eye, ond yr wyf wedi dyfynnu cyfeiriad y rhaglen at bedair galwad ffôn. Gan na fu imi weld y rhaglen na gofyn i Simon Hughes sawl trafodaeth a gafodd gyda Heddlu De Cymru, nid wyf yn gwybod faint o amser a fu rhwng pob galwad. Dyfynnodd Kirsty Williams yn gynharach eiriau prif gwnstabl Heddlu De Cymru, a ddywedodd mai nonsens llwyr yw unrhyw ddehongliad sy’n awgrymu bod rhywrai, gan gynnwys Simon Hughes, wedi dwyn pwysau ar yr heddlu. Rhaid ichi dderbyn gair y prif gwnstabl wrth iddo ddweud nad oedd yn ymwybodol bod y galwadau ffôn, hyd yn oed pe bai mwy na phedair, yn ymgais i ddwyn pwysau arno ef a heddweision eraill wrth iddynt ddilyn yr ymholiadau a cheisio eu dirwyn i ben, pryd bynnag y bydd hynny’n digwydd.

O ran fy nhrafodaethau i â Simon Hughes, yr oedd yntau’n bennaf yn sôn am y ffaith nad yr heddlu sy’n ymdrin â’r mater hwn yn Awstria, ond system farnwrol y wlad, sydd yn debyg i’r system yn Ffrainc. Dyna oedd 90 y cant o’n trafodaethau.

Do you agree that what we have heard today amounts to a lot of sound and fury from the forces of Conservatism in this Chamber, signifying nothing more than sheer desperation? Do you also agree that what we appear to have heard from one Member amounts to malice arising from a lost Cabinet seat, dressed up as moral principle but with as much substance as the emperor’s new clothes? [Interruption.]

I withdraw the allegation.

I agree with you about it being sound and fury. Members have not been willing to listen to the detail of the statement nor have they been willing, as they had prepared their questions before I made the statement, to adjust them according to the facts and principles that I have laid out. I obviously cannot follow Richard down the track that he took in his peroration.

For the past 50 minutes I have heard the First Minister, at best, selectively answer questions and, at worst, ignore questions. However, is not the focal point of this episode whether or not Andrew Davies knew about it? Andrew Davies did know, First Minister, did he not? Do you agree that, if Ministers blatantly mislead, either through the media or in the Chamber, they should resign?

Alun, you must try to listen to answers given to previous questions and not pretend that you are raising new points not addressed previously. I have already said that I had given Andrew an understanding of the ‘home straight issue’ based on bits and bobs of information from many quarters. As far as I remember, Andrew accepted it from me on that basis and used the phrase again in the press briefing. I stand to be corrected—just possibly—but that is my memory of the events. You must remember that we are talking about something that happened two months ago.

I must complain about this. If somebody came to my constituency surgery asking for assistance in trying to establish the timetable of an investigation against him or her, which could not be had in any other way, I would certainly feel it my duty to make inquiries to the police about the timescale. However, will you confirm that the proposal to provide continuing information on this particular case was, as you said in your statement, from the police and not on the initiative of the Permanent Secretary?

I can confirm that. However, this is the bit that is particularly inconvenient for the opposition spokesmen. No-one has referred to this because it has obviously taken them a little by surprise. I am terribly sorry to disappoint you on that matter but, there we go, life is like that sometimes, Nick and Ieuan. On your point about enquiring as to the length of an investigation, you and I would do so, but not as First Minister. That is the problem. That is why we took this ultra-careful approach initially on this terribly limited front of a few hours’ notice. The police then offered, without being asked, to give us progress reports via the Permanent Secretary.

First Minister, does a one-legged duck swim in a circle, thereby getting nowhere? Do you agree that you have handled this as badly as you handled the matter of the new Assembly building? I do not have a problem with the Permanent Secretary contacting South Wales Police. The Permanent Secretary had a need to know, just as the First Minister had a need to know about the timescale. However, if the First Minister only wanted a timescale, what does a progress report consist of, other than stating that it will be due in x months’, x weeks’ or x years’ time? While the First Minister and the Permanent Secretary had a need to know, the one person who did not need to know, as Cynog Dafis said, is Simon Hughes. Why did he need to know? It is not a party matter that he is interested in; he is apparently only interested in the prosecution and justice. In that case, why did not Simon Hughes phone the Metropolitan Police while I was waiting a year to clear my name? He did not bother to do that. First Minister, this does not stack up. Primarily, what does a progress report consist of other than timings?

It would be about timescale. Your point about Simon Hughes and the investigation, the charge and the trial that you endured, to be found innocent eventually, is not really relevant, Rod. I am surprised that you have raised it but, since you have done so, I can only say that it is a matter for you to raise with Simon Hughes. If you would have liked him to intervene in your case, then that is for you and Simon Hughes. It is not a matter for me.

In September 2000, I invited Lord Carlile of Berriew, QC, to chair a multidisciplinary panel to consider the safeguards for children and young people treated and cared for by the national health service in Wales. I decided to establish this review to build on the findings of the report of the north Wales tribunal, ‘Lost in Care’, and to take forward the results of inspection of our two child and adolescent mental health units. I asked Lord Carlile to conduct a wide policy review covering all aspects of NHS provision for children and young people.

Earlier today, I was delighted to publish the panel’s report. It was asked to undertake a huge task, and I am grateful for the manner in which it rose to the challenge. The panel took both written and oral evidence from members of the public, stakeholders from the NHS, local authorities and professional and voluntary bodies. Panel members visited a number of NHS and independent units in Wales, and a few in England. Focus groups were held in schools to canvass the views of children and young people. The co-operation of all those consulted enabled the panel to carry out a thorough and complete consideration of the issues connected with the safety of our children when they are most vulnerable.

The Carlile report contains 150 recommendations for improving standards and increasing safeguards for children and young people in Wales. These recommendations are aimed at the Welsh Assembly Government, health authorities, NHS trusts, local health groups, contractor professions as well as partner agencies in social care.

The report rightly starts with children’s rights, and at the centre of the report is the need to put children and their safety at the heart of the NHS whenever and wherever they may need to come into contact with it. It recognises the need to ensure that everyone who has contact with children and the treatment of children—from non-executive directors to doctors, nurses and practice receptionists—is aware of the rights of the child and is alert to the possibility of abuse. The report takes the view that developing a culture of awareness of child abuse throughout the NHS is the best possible way to protect young patients. Recommendations are made with regard to advocacy services, so that the voice of the child can be heard.

The report identifies that, first and foremost, it is essential to recruit appropriately trained staff to provide for the health needs of children. In that connection it makes several recommendations to strengthen human resource policies throughout the NHS in Wales. It recognises the need for rigorous recruitment procedures, as well as endorsing the need for proper, well-developed policies for handling whistle-blowers, and disciplinary procedures and support for those against whom allegations have been made.

It also emphasises the need for sufficient numbers of staff in key posts. In this, the report recommends an increase in the number of paediatricians and trained children’s nurses across Wales. The report recognises the important role of designated doctors and nurses for child protection at the strategic level, and named doctors and nurses for child protection in trusts. It recommends that the posts be given protected time to allow them to undertake their duties, and makes recommendations as to their location in the reorganised NHS.

The report makes recommendations regarding hospital and specialised medical care. Here, it builds on the Kennedy report into Bristol Royal Infirmary, and makes recommendations in several areas such as accident and emergency departments and children treated on adult wards.

Most sick children are not admitted to hospital for treatment. Their contact with the NHS is via their family doctor, health visitor, school and practice nurse, dentists and opticians. The report makes recommendations that will increase awareness of child protection issues in these professions. Health visitors and school nurses are commended for their excellent work. The report recommends that the role of the school nurse is strengthened, and that proper career paths are developed to encourage nurses into this important area of work.

The needs of those young people who are especially vulnerable are considered carefully in this report. That includes those with mental health problems, children cared for away from home and those in secure settings. The report makes several recommendations to ensure that these vulnerable groups have access to good-quality healthcare. The report draws lessons from a case study of Gwynfa residential clinic undertaken as a retrospective review of events. As well as drawing on the lessons from this case study, the report concludes that all actions that ought to have been taken in respect of the allegations, have been taken.

I am determined to ensure that every child and young person being treated by the NHS should be safe, feel safe, be treated as individuals and have their needs met by appropriately trained and sympathetic staff. An implementation group of my officials has been set up to advise me on how we can best implement the report. The report will be discussed at the Health and Social Services Committee meeting next week, and I will then produce the Welsh Assembly Government’s response. I want to see this report’s recommendations embedded in the standards that we are developing as part of the national service framework for children, which I announced late last year.

I declare my usual interest as a general practitioner and councillor of the City and County of Swansea Council. As we have heard, the Carlile report contains around 150 recommendations for improving standards and increasing safeguards for children and young people in Wales. That will pose a significant challenge because, as we have heard, this report is about making everyone aware of the rights of the child. Due to recent events, we are particularly aware of the significant challenges facing advocacy services, which is one of the main recommendations here. Will the Minister comment on the development of advocacy services, following the withdrawal of the Children’s Society from Wales in recent months?

On whistle-blowers, this has been a wide-ranging issue for many years. I am aware of such issues through my postbag. Will the Minister elaborate on the improved support that she wants to see for them?

The next issue revolves around the recommendation for increasing staff numbers, particularly paediatricians. That is particularly in view of the evidence we heard in Rhyl—while the Health and Social Services Committee was on tour last Wednesday—about the pitiful number of school nurses in Wales. There are only 184 to cover all schools in Wales. How will the Minister remedy that situation?

The final issue is what role, if any, does the Minister foresee for the Children’s Commissioner in this matter? I look forward to the discussion in the Health and Social Services Committee meeting next week.

Your initial responses to the report are helpful and are welcome, and I will respond in full from the Welsh Assembly Government. On your point about advocacy services, they are important. We are currently seeking to secure those advocacy services that were put at risk by the withdrawal of the Children’s Society from Wales. Our key intention has been to ensure that the Children’s Society not only leaves money in Wales to take that forward, but also that the partnership with local authorities, which also fund those advocacy services, is secured with Assembly backing. We are also moving to consider the whole range of independent advocacy services that we need for children in Wales, and this report’s recommendations will fit well into taking that forward.

Equally, on whistle blowing and the protection of staff who take these issues forward, the report’s recommendations strongly feature such terms. Human resources are being used across the board in terms of recruitment, retention, training for child protection and creating a culture of awareness of abuse that we must establish in the health service. Today, Lord Carlile challenged the Assembly to take child protection to the heart of our agenda. That is something that we all share today.

This report strongly endorses school nurses, as we have heard throughout our Committee review. We have heard evidence from school nurses, and all of us who are familiar with their work recognise that it is long overdue for us to ensure that they are supported within the NHS, and increase and improve their training. That is one of the key recommendations of the Carlile report.

On the Children’s Commissioner, I called for this review and invited Alex Carlile to undertake it, because we knew that there was a gap in provision following the Waterhouse report. We had acted on the Waterhouse report’s recommendations to appoint a Children’s Commissioner. That was initially about children in local authority care, but we widened the role of the Commissioner to cross all policy areas, including the health service, enabling the Carlile report to take that on board. The report recommends how the Children’s Commissioner and his work can fit into the review.

Thank you for your statement, Minister. I will begin by thanking and congratulating Alex Carlile and his team on the vast amount of work that they have undertaken on behalf of the Assembly in this review.

Issues around child safety in NHS settings were alluded to in the Waterhouse report, but were not adequately addressed. I raised those concerns with you at the time, and I am grateful that you shared those concerns enough to instigate this report. I am also grateful for the action that you have taken on this serious issue.

The publication of the Carlile report is timely, building on the recent Kennedy report, the Health and Social Services Committee review into the health needs of children, as well as work currently undertaken by the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales on the promise of a national service framework for children’s services in Wales. I believe that by acting on all these reports, we can, as an Assembly, vastly improve the services currently on offer to children in Wales, but also protect the needs of children who access their health services outside the principality, primarily in London, Birmingham, and Alder Hey in Liverpool.

I do not wish to pre-empt the Health and Social Services Committee discussion on this report on Wednesday, but I welcome this initial statement. Will you give an indication as to when you will be in a position to respond to the Carlile review and when we may begin to implement its recommendations?

The timely nature of the review is important because of the SHSCW review of paediatric intensive care. I have already made a commitment to appointing a director of children’s health services in Wales. That recommendation was included in the Carlile review. It is important that we are already implementing many of its recommendations. I announced the children’s national service framework in connection with the Kennedy report on the Bristol Royal Infirmary inquiry, and we are taking that forward. Our officials are already working alongside the implementation group for the Carlile review to take forward the national service framework. It will fit clearly into some of the Health and Social Services Committee review’s findings on the special healthcare needs of children. We can then ensure that the National Assembly—and the Welsh Assembly Government—takes a child-centred approach to securing children’s needs in the NHS. I will come back to Plenary in April, with the agreement of the Minister for Assembly Business, to give the Welsh Assembly Government’s response.

I add my thanks to Lord Carlile and his team for producing this excellent and valuable report. I am also pleased that the Health and Social Services Committee will have an early opportunity to discuss it. The report is right to say that the protection of children’s rights must be inherent in all NHS services from treatment for those who need minor check-ups at the local dentist to those who require extensive and long-term treatment. However, we must concentrate on those vulnerable children who suffer disability or long-term illness, or in particular, some form of mental illness—we know that the number of adolescents and children with severe mental illness is increasing. These people must be given particular consideration and vigorous protection. Those who may be suffering from some mental illness are more likely to be in contact with the criminal justice system and to be in receipt of complicated and long-term treatment. I hope that we will prioritise those particularly vulnerable children first, but then consider this whole question systematically.

It is an excellent and valuable report and it brought together a team of professionals, the voluntary sector, users and carers across Wales, and, as I said, gathered a great deal of evidence from across Wales. The report is called ‘Too Serious a Thing’, and it recognises the fact that we must consider our most vulnerable children and young people. As you say, we discovered from our Committee review that we must consider carefully those who have complex needs, in terms of the multidisciplinary, multi-agency approach that is vital for meeting the care needs of these children and young people. That is also true of children with mental health problems. A strong synergy with our children and adolescents mental health strategy, called ‘Everybody’s Business’, which I launched last year, is evident in the report. The crossover between the recommendations from ‘Everybody’s Business’ and the Carlile review ensures that we have a clear set of guidelines and policies to implement. In terms of our most vulnerable children, it is about resources and training and ensuring that we have staff who are skilled in meeting the complex needs of those vulnerable children.

I am also pleased to read this report. However, I have reservations because I see no reference to police checks. All NHS staff who have contact with children, often in intimate situations—and you may wish to comment on this—should, perhaps, be subject to police checks. After all, are NHS staff any different to teachers and social workers?

That is an important point. Reference to police checks is made in terms of some of the recommendations, for example, relating to the appointment of independent advocates for children and young people. It is also mentioned in the appointment of staff who work specifically with children and young people, for example, in accident and emergency departments, where children are vulnerable. It is important to safeguard children, particularly in children’s hospital wards, as well as in isolated units off adult wards if we do not yet have children’s wards in every hospital. Therefore, in addition to child protection training, police checks will play a part in upgrading and safeguarding children in hospital, as well as in primary care.

Will you discuss this report with your colleague, the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, as there are cross-cutting issues, specifically relating to school nurses, speech therapists, and so on, with particular reference to children who have statements of special need?

You might have been eavesdropping at the joint-ministerial meeting that was held a few hours ago. We discussed the need to take forward the education agenda, not only in relation to the important points that you make about speech therapists and issues relating to responsibilities for statementing, but also in relation, for example, to the education of sick children in hospitals. That is key for those who must spend a long time in hospital. Home tuition is a big issue for children who are at home and unable to go to school, sometimes for reasons of disability or chronic ill health. Therefore, this crosses boundaries. Fortunately, as our Committee review is also bringing in the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee—Cynog Dafis has been attending our Committee review sessions—we are bringing together those key points about how we need to work together across education, health and social services for our young people.