Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, recently, we've had allegations put by a former cabinet Minister and by a senior special adviser that, in the last Assembly Government that you were First Minister to, there was bullying, mind games, favouritism, deliberate personal undermining, and that that culture was allowed to flourish unchecked. Also, the special adviser cited the behaviour as being 'pure poison'. Could I ask you to comment on those allegations, First Minister, as, if they are correct, then that is no way to run a Government, is it? 

Well, first of all, can I say that I've heard the allegations of bullying by Leighton Andrews? I've listened to what he has to say. I heard what Steve Jones had to say, and what I will say is this: if people wish to come forward to me and explain things to me about their experience, then I'm more than willing for that to happen and they can contact me either through my office or through the Permanent Secretary. 

First Minister, the allegations are levelled very much at your office, and the allegations, or the people making the allegations, state quite clearly that they raised these allegations with you on numerous occasions and just gave up. They just gave up; they believed that they weren't being taken seriously and these issues were not being addressed. Indeed, in an Assembly written question to my colleague Darren Millar, who asked a question back in October/November 2014, you actually responded to him by saying that no allegations had been made. How can people have confidence that if they do choose to raise these serious concerns with you that they will be taken seriously? And in the absence of them having that confidence, would you commit to referring these allegations for investigation by an independent third party so that we can fully understand whether they are serious allegations that stack up, with action required, or that they have no substance and can be discarded? 

I think it's hugely important that, where people have concerns, they're able to express those concerns through a confidential process. I don't think doing it in the public domain is the way to do these things, and I invite people to come forward with any concerns that they might have and contact my office or contact the Permanent Secretary so that I can make an assessment of what was said to be happening at that time. 

Is it fair to say, though, First Minister, that these allegations were raised with you at the time? Because both individuals—senior individuals within the Government—are categorical in their allegations that they were raised on numerous occasions with you, not just on one-off occasions, but they were raised on numerous occasions with you, and indeed that they were levelled at your office, they were. They weren't levelled at the wider Government structure—they were levelled at the office of the First Minister. So, can you confirm that, unlike the answer you gave Darren Millar back in 2014, these allegations were raised with you and that you did investigate them at that time? And, as I said, if they do stack up, will you commit to referring them to an independent person so that they can be looked into and, actually, these actions addressed? 

What I can say is that any issues that were brought to my attention at that time were dealt with. That's the answer that was given—and that answer is correct—back in 2014. If, however, there are other issues that people want to bring forward, then they are welcome to do so. But he asked me a direct question: were any issues raised with me dealt with? The answer to that is: yes, they were dealt with.

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm sure the First Minister will have seen this morning, on WalesOnline, that Martin Shipton has written a piece about the subject that the leader of the opposition has raised. He said that he was invited to a dinner in late 2014 at a friend's home, where Carl Sargeant and other senior Welsh Labour figures gave him a disturbing insight into an aspect of the Welsh Government he wasn't familiar with. He said that he was shocked to hear from Carl and others of the poisonous atmosphere that existed at the heart of the Welsh Government, and claims of instances of undermining and petty sniping that went on—that you had been told of these problems but hadn't done anything about them. So, does that not fly in the face of what you've just said to the leader of the opposition?

I cannot possibly comment on issues that I have no knowledge of, but if the journalist involved or others want to come forward and share what they've said, unknown to me, with me, I'd be more than happy to listen to them.

I'm sure the First Minister will agree that, out of the tragedy of the last few days, it's important that we should learn lessons arising out of Carl Sargeant's dismissal and the processes that were involved in that. The First Minister, as a barrister experienced in criminal law and procedure, said that he acted 'by the book'. Now, Carl Sargeant was given no opportunity to answer to him the allegations that have been made, because no details were given. That flies in the face of one of the most fundamental principles of natural justice—to hear the other side of the argument before somebody is disadvantaged. Also, because the sacking was inevitably public, and the fact that allegations, although unstated, had been made of sexual impropriety, the publicity generated thereby was inevitably prejudicial, which again imperils the presumption of innocence. So, if the First Minister acted by the book in this particular instance, does he now think that that book should be thrown away and replaced by another one that is informed by principles of fairness?

I think there are two things here: first of all, with the independent inquiry and with the inquest, I think it's hugely important that the whole story is told at once and not bits. So, I'm not able to comment on various things that have been said—I don't think it's right for anybody. I think it's hugely important that the whole story is there for all to see, rather than it come out in bits and pieces—I don't think that would be the right process at all.

Secondly, do I think there are lessons for all parties to learn? There may be. I think it's important that we, as political parties, do that. Politics is a very difficult business, we know that. People can be sacked from cabinets, they can be put into cabinets, without any reason. People can go to an election count and they can find themselves in a job, and then find themselves out of a job, while a cheering crowd applauds the fact that they're not in a job. It is, in that sense, a very brutal business. But one of the things that struck me earlier on today is that perhaps, as parties, we should consider how to take not the edge, not the need for forensic examination, not the debate, not the scrutiny, out of politics, but to see how we can make it less brutal than it is. I think that that's something that, as all parties, we may want to consider in the future.

I, of course, have personal experience of being sacked, and I can confirm it's not pleasant, but nobody who is in politics can actually complain with any justice about being sacked, because there's no justice about appointments in the first place. But the point in this particular instance was that the sacking was associated with the allegations that have been made against him.

There is another way in which the First Minister could have dealt with this, because Carl Sargeant, as a Minister of the Crown, was governed by the ministerial code of conduct as well, which says that:

'Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave in a principled way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.'

And Damian Green, the First Secretary of State, has been made the subject of allegations of sexual impropriety, and those are being investigated not by an internal party investigation, but by Sue Gray, who is the director general of the civil service propriety and ethics team. By contrast, the route that the First Minister chose was to send his special adviser to speak to the complainants. The solicitors now acting for Carl Sargeant's family say that to appoint a political activist in these circumstances, with no special expertise in undertaking a preliminary disciplinary investigation, actually prejudices the outcome of this process, and is actually as unfair to those who are making the allegations as to those who are subject to them. Because if there are uncertainties now about the credibility of any evidence that is caused by that, because, as the solicitors for Carl Sargeant's family have said, there's a real possibility that the evidence of witnesses is being manipulated and because numerous conversations with witnesses by the First Minister's office creates uncertainty about that credibility, it really undermines the whole process for everybody that's involved in it. So, would it not be better in future for these things to be examined independently of the political process itself? 

I think we must be very careful about suggesting—. The words that he has used—. 'A real possibility of manipulation' is a very, very serious suggestion and would need some very strong evidence to back it up. The family have asked for there to be an independent inquiry. I have ensured that steps are now moving ahead for that independent inquiry to move forward. It would not be right for the family if I were to go into the detail of events because it would seem convenient to do so for me—I'm not prepared to do that—rather than allow the inquiry to take its full course and then, of course, for all events to be examined at that time. I realise that there are some who think me evasive as a result of saying that, but I do think it's hugely important that all this is examined. I've said that this is important. I understand that. It's important for the family. But it's important that all this is examined and a full picture presented at the right time. I think the family is owed that. 

Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood. 

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, I've already set out my view over the weekend regarding the difficult situation facing the Welsh Government and, of course, Welsh politics as a whole. Plaid Cymru is not prepared to make premature statements about anyone's political future; the issues have not yet been dealt with and the decisions that were made have not yet been examined. We do believe that questions must be answered and we support and called for the independent inquiry. With the inquest having already begun, can you confirm the timescale for the independent inquiry into the circumstances leading up to Carl Sargeant's death? 

The first thing to do, of course, is for a QC to be appointed, for the terms of reference to be set, and then, of course, it's entirely a matter for the QC, who will act at an arm's length. That process will need now to proceed as quickly as possible. I did notice one of the comments the coroner made yesterday was that—. He seemed to indicate that the inquiry would influence one of the outcomes of his inquest. We need to clarify exactly what that means, whether he wants the inquiry to conclude before the inquest or not. I think that's something that needs to be clarified, but, from my perspective, I want to make sure that matters now proceed as swiftly as possible. 

And I think we can take it, First Minister, that once that information becomes available you'd be prepared to share it with the Assembly as well. Following last week, there are questions over how we can ensure that disclosures are dealt with in a way that's fair to everyone involved. Now, I've found myself asking: how do we as political parties have the resources and the trained personnel to deal with allegations and to operate in a transparent way, or could they be dealt with in a more independent way in the future? An independent and neutral authority might be more trusted, more impartial, more transparent than political parties are able to be. 

Now, the office of the Standards Commissioner may not have the resources at present to deal with disclosures of harassment or other misconduct in full. There's also a question about sanctions—what kind of sanctions could be placed on people. Do you believe that the office of the Standards Commissioner could be equipped with better resources, and that they should also look at meaningful sanctions to deal with such disclosures?

I think the leader of Plaid Cymru has raised a hugely important point and that is: how can we create a complaints process that's different—not weaker, but different—a complaints process that supports all parties? We have to be honest: we are a small country and we are all small parties. I think there is great merit in exploring, with the Presiding Officer, how the Standards Commissioner might change roles from the current role. I think that is something that useful discussion could be had on amongst the parties.

First Minister, we know that sexual harassment occurs elsewhere in politics and in other industries as well. In fact, we can say that it exists in almost every walk of life. It remains a problem experienced by many people—not exclusively, but mainly, women. And it remains an issue that needs to be tackled. One point we need to consider—all of us, I think—is how we can create the conditions and the culture for those who have experienced sexual harassment to be able to make disclosures safely in the future. Looking beyond the issue of disclosures and anonymity, can you tell us what steps could be taken to ensure that attitudes change, so that harassment can be prevented from taking place in the first place? 

I think that is a question for all parties, working together, to resolve. We have to create a situation where complainants don't feel they're not able to come forward. We have to create a system—yes, we want to make sure that every system is fair; everybody understands that. From my perspective, I want to make sure that, working together as political parties, we can create the correct atmosphere and also to make sure, of course, that we are able to ensure that the processes—if there are new processes followed in the future, that they apply to all parties equally.

There are many questions, I think, that will be asked. The leader of Plaid Cymru is absolutely right to say that there are bound to be questions. I accept that, and those are questions that people want the answers to, and I accept that as well. I think, as political parties, we just need to see whether there is a way of changing the way that the Assembly deals with these issues and those are conversations we may well need to have over the next few weeks.

Question 3—Jenny Rathbone.