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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, when devolution came into being in 1999 we said at that time that things were going to be different, politics was going to be different. This morning, your Government, and you in particular, wrote a letter to the Presiding Officer indicating that you were minded to seek a legal judgment from the court to stop a debate in this Chamber taking place tomorrow. The only place we can find any comparable comparisons is the country of Egypt, where the executive tries to stop the legislature debating and discussing and voting on a motion that comes before it that is deemed in competence. Why are you trying to silence the Assembly?

Well, the leader of the opposition is wrong. There is actually no power to prevent a debate happening in this Chamber except that which resides in the hands of the Presiding Officer. That's not what the letter's about.

As I understand it, First Minister, from the letter that you sent to the Presiding Officer, you seem to deem yourself outside the scope of the Government of Wales provision, and therefore you do not feel that you are bound by the provisions within the Government of Wales Act, and that is what you will be seeking a judgment from the court on if you seek that route. That, in effect, places you above the law, if you take your interpretation to the extreme, because you are saying your Ministers are bound by the provisions within the Government of Wales Act but you yourself are not. Now, surely, First Minister, you should allow this debate to go ahead tomorrow, allow the debate, because it's deemed to be in competence—it's on the order paper—and I would seek confirmation from you today that you will not try and intervene and stop this debate taking place tomorrow afternoon.

I have no power to intervene to stop the debate taking place; that's a matter for the Presiding Officer. And also the leader of the opposition inadvertently misleads the Assembly when he claims the effect of section 37, as we interpret it, is to put the First Minister beyond the law. It is not. The interpretation that we place on section 37 is that it applies specifically to Welsh Ministers and not to the functions of the First Minister. Now, that is an issue that is hugely important in law—it's hugely important. Now, if something is in dispute in terms of the law, it's perfectly proper that clarity is sought as to how the law operates. We can't operate in a slapdash way; we have to make sure we have clarity for Government and, indeed, for the Assembly.

First Minister, I never thought I'd stand in this Chamber and find us debating these types of points, or discussing these types of points, where you—you—as First Minister, because it's your signature on the bottom of that letter, are trying to prevent a debate coming forward tomorrow because you want to seek a judgment of the court to prevent that happening. Now, you have said time and time again that the substance of the debate tomorrow, which is the leak inquiry report, is in the ownership of the Permanent Secretary, and it is for her to determine whether that report should come forward. Why are you intervening now to try and stop that report coming forward? Because, if that report became public and people could form an opinion, with suitable redactions, which is what we've called for in the motion tomorrow, to protect the identity of any witnesses who wish that identity to be protected, people could form an opinion on that report. Instead, today—the first day back after the Easter recess—we are looking at you as First Minister who has sent a letter to the Presiding Officer, trying to silence the Assembly. That is the wrong way to do democracy here in Wales.

It misleads the Assembly to suggest that we have the power to stop the Presiding Officer allowing a debate. That's not what the situation is here. Now, let me explain what the situation actually—. [Interruption.]

I am interested in hearing the First Minister's response.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I have no fear of the leak inquiry; I ordered it. And it is something that I was under no—it was not imposed on me, it was something that I took forward and Members can see the conclusion. There are far wider legal issues here that arise as a result of the operation of section 37. It's worth me exploring that with Members in detail. Now, first of all, there have been discussions with the Presiding Officer. It's not the case that this came out of the blue. It's not something I would choose to do, I have to say, if other options were available, but we have to protect the position of a senior member of Welsh Government staff who, if the motion was passed, would be at risk of prosecution. This is a serious issue—a hugely serious legal issue—and it is incumbent on us to make sure that steps are taken to protect her. But it goes beyond that.

Section 37 is so broadly defined that, without greater clarity—[Interruption.] Well, if the Member wanted to listen carefully, he might learn something. Okay? Section 37 is so broadly defined, and it lacks such clarity, that potentially any document of any kind that is in the control of a Minister, or an employee of Welsh Government, is potentially releaseable—any document—regardless of whether it was caught by an exemption of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, regardless of whether it was caught by the Data Protection Act 1998, regardless of whether a document might be libellous, regardless of whether the document might contain details of national security. Now, I have in my possession documents that are given to me as First Minister that deal with national security. Under the interpretation at the moment that we have, that would be releaseable—that would be releaseable. [Interruption.] Well, it is; there is no clarity on it.

Secondly—[Interruption.]

Allow the First Minister to be heard. 

Secondly, documents that are commercially confidential, under the interpretation and the lack of clarity that we have now, are no longer subject to confidentiality. It means that any document—a tender bid for example, a commercially confidential document—would be potentially releasable without further clarity. That is the reality of it without further clarity. [Interruption.] If Members don't want to listen—. I'm trying to put a reasonable case here for them. If they don't want to listen, that's a matter for them.

More importantly, if a whistleblower came forward to a Minister with a serious allegation on the basis of confidentiality, and a document was created as a result of that, there is now no guarantee of confidentiality without further clarity. There is no guarantee. I cannot give, as First Minister, any guarantee of confidentiality to anybody, nor can any other Welsh Minister, until this matter is clarified—until this matter is clarified. It also means that any person who produces a document in confidence, or who gives evidence in confidence to any investigation or inquiry, is now not able to receive an absolute guarantee of confidence. That's how serious the situation is.

Now, how can this be resolved? How can this be resolved? Well, there are three ways of resolving it. First of all, a change in the law—section 37. We can't do that. Section 37 is incredibly badly drafted and nobody disputes that. We can't do anything about that. Secondly—not my first choice—is for the matter to be decided in the courts by way of a declaration. That is not the way that I would want to deal with this. We have to protect our position as a Government. The third way of doing it is for a protocol to be developed, as happens in every other Parliament—a protocol to be developed—in order for Members to understand what would be in order and what documents would be releasable in the future. This is exactly what happens at Westminster. There is no reason why this can't happen in the Assembly. 

So, I reiterate the offer we have already made to the Commission, and we make it in good faith, and that is that tomorrow's debate is not time-sensitive and I do not advocate cancelling the debate—I don't advocate withdrawing the debate—but there is an opportunity for that debate to happen in the future. What is clear here is that there are serious legal and constitutional issues that have arisen that need to be resolved, and the way to resolve them, surely, is for this to be done working with the Commission to develop a protocol to provide greater clarity to Members. I make that offer to the Commission and, indeed, to you, Presiding Officer, to deal with this issue in a way that avoids the need for legal action. 

The Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood. 

The problem is that sounds like a threat, First Minister, and the questions of openness and transparency are not going to go away. They cut to the very heart of democracy, and if there are so many problems with the Wales Act why have they only now been identified? These matters, we'll be coming back to them, but I want to ask you about the question of Syria. 

Does the First Minister support military intervention in Syria? 

I received a phone call at midnight on Saturday morning from Downing Street. I received a briefing from the Prime Minister. It was clear what the action was going to be. I made clear to her my concern that I feared there would be civilian casualties, given the complicated mosaic on the ground in Syria. That doesn't seem to have happened. But my concern, and it was made to her at the time—. I was very concerned that it wouldn't be possible to take any action without civilian casualties and that was something that I wanted to avoid. 

My party is committed to opposing these tokenistic, American-led air strikes, and I'd like to remind the First Minister that the road to peace is rarely paved with the weapons of war. Now, the effectiveness in terms of stopping Syrian suffering is far from clear. The Prime Minister herself has said that these strikes were not intended to change the course of the war in Syria and end the suffering of the Syrian people. Without a single vote cast in this Parliament, Westminster, or anywhere else, the First Minister was quick to show his support for those air strikes. So, can he now tell this Assembly: does he believe that Westminster should be able to start wars without any parliamentary approval?

Well, it's not a war, because that prerogative lies with the monarch. It is military action; that is true. Well, there is a precedent for it. David Cameron asked for a vote in Parliament, and it's a matter for the current Prime Minister to explain as to why there wasn't a vote this time around. There are great dangers here. Syria is complicated. There's no doubt in my mind there was a chemical attack, and anything that removes the capability of such an attack occurring in the future is something I would support. What I would be extremely sceptical of would be an acceleration or escalation of military action in Syria, which would lead, to my mind, inevitably to civilian casualties, and that, of course, would be a propaganda boost for those countries that are already in Syria and who themselves have a case to answer for what they're doing.

But that risk is there now, isn't it?

'So for me it’s not a question of bombing in Iraq and then bombing in Syria—I don’t see much of a difference.'

Those were the complacent words of the First Minister when the prospect of British bombs being dropped on Syria first arose back in 2015. He supported bombing campaigns in Syria then, and he supports them now. Yesterday, the First Minister's London Labour boss questioned the legality, the morality and the effectiveness of the strikes. Does the First Minister harbour the same concerns, or does he stand by his comments in support for the Prime Minister and her air strikes in the British national interest?

Well, firstly, I have no reason to doubt the soundness of the legal advice. On the issue of morality—well, we are talking here about a chemical attack that occurred on defenceless civilians, and if an attack means that the capability of repeating that is no longer there, then, yes, I would support that. Yes, I would support that.

That's not the case.

The third point, then, is effectiveness—well, time will tell. Time will tell. What I would not support is any military action that would put the lives of civilians at risk. That's a propaganda boon to other countries—a propaganda boost.

But there was a chemical attack by the Assad regime; of that, I am convinced. Secondly, I believe that these missile launches were designed to reduce or remove the capacity for a chemical attack in the future. That surely must be something that should be welcomed in order to avoid those attacks happening in the future. But in terms of escalation, no, there are no great dangers of that. 

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

As I listened to the First Minister's tortuous, legalistic response to the leader of the opposition earlier on, I was reminded of Denis Healy's first law of holes, that when in one, the best thing to do is to stop digging. Another international comparison of the position that the First Minister seems to find himself in today is the Watergate affair. He'll remember that it wasn't the break-in that actually brought down Richard Nixon, but the attempted cover-up. The President in that case said that when the President does it, it's not illegal. Does the First Minister really want to go down in history as the 'Tricky Dicky' of Welsh politics?

Well, this is the man who defends Enoch Powell. This is the man who defends Enoch Powell, and he seeks to lecture us on morality. 'Have a good look at yourself' is my response to that. No-one suggests that anybody is above the law, but I'd be interested to know whether there's anything that I said with which he disagrees.

Well, if I were counsel, Llywydd, in any legal action that might be brought, I would provide a legal argument for it, but the subsection that the First Minister refers to states, in relation to Ministers' functions—or, rather, the letter states that section 37, in relation to Ministers' functions, must identify a function that is exercisable by the First Minister and Welsh Ministers collectively. If the function in question is exercisable by the First Minister alone, section 37 has no application. So, what he's effectively saying is that if it's Welsh Ministers together, they are scrutinisable, in the way that section 37 provides, but if it's the First Minister alone, he isn't. That seems to be a very perverse interpretation of a very clear section. 

Well, I find it very strange that somebody who stands here in First Minister's questions every week, and has missed very few, suggests that somehow I'm afraid of scrutiny. But the law is the law, and the law has to be applied. Now, there is a difference of interpretation. There are two ways of resolving that interpretation, one of which would be my preferred way, which I have already outlined, and the other one is more formal, but I believe that there is a way of resolving this in order to provide Members with more transparency and to provide Government with the kind of comfort that it needs. I ask Members in this Chamber, and I ask the different parties in this Chamber: if you were in a position where you had been given documents in confidence and you found yourself with a vote demanding those documents should be produced, what would your response be? You want to be in Government; put yourself in the position of somebody who is leading a Government. It's hugely important that there is clarity in this regard, and that clarity I hope can be developed, working with the Commission and the Presiding Officer in the future.

Well, I'm sure the First Minister is also aware of subsection (6) of section 37, which says that, if the Assembly does pass a motion requiring the production of a document, a direction may be issued by the First Minister or the Government to direct the person at which that requirement is pointed not to comply with it. That, of course, would place the Government in a very embarrassing position, but it would protect against the legal consequences, which the First Minister was adumbrating earlier on. It would seem a very perverse outcome again, in relation to what he said about how this would breach commercial confidentiality, potentially, and the wider implications of what this is supposed to risk, if anything that the First Minister was dealing with would be gaggable or could be prevented from publication, but anything that any other Minister does is perfectly open to scrutiny, whether it would be in a court of law, in the court of public opinion or in this democratic Assembly, which represents the whole of the Welsh people.

There are two issues: firstly, whether the First Minister's functions are actually part of the operation of section 37, and, secondly, the broader Pandora's box that has now been opened, which is what documents are releasable under section 37. If all documents are releasable, I can't see how Government can continue, bluntly. It's that bad. There has to be some limit, surely. The operation of the Data Protection Act, the operation of the Freedom of Information Act—. I know the Tories haven't thought this far, but the operation of the Freedom of Information Act—they would not apply. They would not apply in these—. There has to be some limit to this.

At this moment in time, the Government cannot give a guarantee of confidentiality to anybody, and that is an interpretation that we can't clearly accept. It's in everyone's interests to get that clarity. Secondly, he only read out the first part of the subsection—subsection (6). Yes, it is possible for a direction to be issued that the person need not comply with the notice, but then another person has to be specified who has to comply with the notice. It's not an absolute discretion. So, have a look at the second part of the section, and it will give you a good idea of how the subsection operates. Yes, it is possible to direct that the person should not comply, but someone else has to be put in their place. So, actually, the discretion is not as absolute as the Member describes.