8. Has the First Minister sought legal advice on the covenant that exists on land in Baglan industrial park on which the Ministry of Justice wishes to build a new prison? OAQ51428

As the Member will be aware, this question relates to legal information that's privileged, so I can't respond to him on that point.

First Minister, I asked your Counsel General the same type of question about a fortnight ago and I got a typical lawyer's answer, or perhaps a typical Counsel General's answer. My constituents want clarity. There's a debate tomorrow afternoon in this Chamber about that prison, and they're seeking that clarity, particularly on the Welsh Government's views on its responsibilities under the covenant. Can the First Minister reassure my constituents that the Welsh Government has no plans to change the covenant and will seek to abide by its principles of keeping the use of the land for industrial purposes, and to avoid nuisance for neighbours, which would mean telling the MOJ 'no' when they wish to purchase or lease the land for the development of a prison, which, in my book, does not come under an industrial development?

What I can say to the Member is this: the Ministry of Justice have not asked the Welsh Government to sell them the land at the Baglan site, and no decision on the future of the site has been made. I can say that a letter was written by Carl Sargeant to David Lidington, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, on 26 October 2017. That letter sought confirmation whether it's still the intention that the proposed prison at Baglan would be a category C establishment or whether there are plans to house other prisoners in the proposed prison. In addition, the letter requested confirmation of the effect that a new prison in south Wales would have on the prisons of Cardiff and Swansea. We have not received a response to that letter. And there will be no further action from the Welsh Government until that response is forthcoming.

That's a very interesting answer, First Minister. I think, however, you are possibly able to tell us—as it's a matter of public record—which parties would be entitled to enforce the covenant that's in the documentation at the moment. Are you able to tell us, as well, how many expressions of interest have been made in that land during the period of Welsh Government ownership, and which have been put off by the existence of the covenant?

It's very difficult to give a view on whether an expression of interest has been put off, because, of course, you wouldn't know of the expression of interest in the first place. What I can say is that it's the Ministry of Justice—that her party, of course, are responsible for—who want to build on this land. From our perspective, we are quite clear that until and unless we get the clarification that we wish to have, we will take no further steps in relation to this land. We will examine very carefully whether this land is, in fact, the right place for a prison to go.

Legal advice I've received, and I quote, says: 'Assuming this is correct, there is a covenant and that covenant is legally valid. It means that the site is affected by an obligation in favour of a third party limiting its use to an industrial park only. In those circumstances, building a prison on the site could be a breach of the covenant. In the event of a breach, the party with the benefit of the covenant could take steps to enforce it, e.g. by seeking an injunction restraining the development and/or claiming compensation.'

So, from this legal advice, which clearly shows there are many tools within the Welsh Government's box to block the proposed prison and force the MOJ into compulsory purchase, the only reason not to do this, as far as I could understand, would be that the Welsh Government wants to have this prison in Baglan. Will you seek a commitment here today that the Welsh Government will oppose releasing this land to the MOJ, so that, therefore, posing the question to the UK Government is no longer necessary in future?

We await the response from the UK Government. I'd say quite clearly to the Member that there will be no action on this point unless there is a satisfactory response to that letter, and even then, we will consider whether, in fact, this land is the right place for a prison.

Thank you, First Minister. 

A point of order arising out of questions. Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I seek your advice as much as anyone's as to whether Standing Orders can help us actually get the correct answers to questions in this Chamber. You will have heard my question was very specific to the First Minister about whether he'd received any comments about the behaviour of his staff from Leighton Andrews, to which he gave no reply—[Interruption.]

I'm listening to this point of order in order to decide whether it is a point of order or not.

Thank you. I think we'll listen to the current Presiding Officer in these regards, if we may. In the last 15 minutes, Leighton Andrews has issued his own statement saying as follows:

'In November 2014, I told the First Minister face to face that I believed that the Code for Special Advisers had been broken. I asked him to carry out a formal investigation. He said he would.'

He said he would. Can we reconcile these two questions by giving the First Minister an opportunity to add to what he told myself, Angela Burns and Andrew Davies?

The Member knows that we can't use points of order just in order to extend First Minister's questions. Your comments, or the comments of former AMs, are now on the record this afternoon.