I do believe that we need to reflect on the evidence that is before us, in particular when we look at the comment around the reshuffle that, as I've drawn attention to before, via social media, via text messages, via comment from commentators, are there for all to see. I could offer any one of 101 different examples of such comment. These comments were all referring to sources that were putting information into the public domain for speculation, for conversation, that alluded to people leaving that Government, people coming into Government. Indeed, most people expect, around Cabinet reshuffles and around politics in general, that there is this chatter and there is this debate, shall we say, and very often people want to try and show their worth by pretending to have, or actually having, information to hand to show that they're connected to the process. I could quote any one of a number of tweets here. One says:

'Told by sources that Carl Sargeant @wgcs_community losing his job'.

That was a tweet from a journalist. I could go on then to a lobbyist that talked about the predictions of what the new Cabinet would look like, which talked of:

'2 Cabinet Members to leave, a promotion or two and 3 of the 2015 intake in. And possibly a little extra surprise.'

All of that was actually informed information, as I understand it, which, when you look at the events around the Cabinet reshuffle, came into reality.

We've also had evidence given only today, for example, from a leading figure from a previous Government that did talk about a lobbying company, Deryn, actually having that information and saying that 'the key issues I have given in evidence to the leak inquiry'—he said that he's given this evidence to the leak inquiry—'were that journalists had told me that they had received a text from the Deryn employee well before the reshuffle announcement stating that Carl Sargeant was to lose his job.' A Labour AM, now confirmed as the Member for Llanelli, told the Assembly Labour group on 9 November that he had received a text on 3 November in advance of the reshuffle stating the same, but without specifying who sent this. Some MPs were told in advance of the reshuffle being announced that Carl Sargeant would be losing his job.

These are all in the public domain. That's not something I have commented on and put out myself; it's not a comment attributed to me. Those examples were all there, and, again, that's why I, and many others I'm sure, would like to understand the methodology and the reasoning of how the Permanent Secretary arrived at the conclusions in her report.

Just before the recess, this half-term recess, it was perfectly appropriate, as the First Minister's spokesman saw fit at that time, to refer to the report, to say in a BBC report, that the message, when he was talking about text messages around the time of the reshuffle:

'This message was investigated as part of the leak inquiry which found that no leak from the Welsh Government took place. We cannot comment further.'

It seems that, when they choose to cite the report, to obviously talk to journalists, they can do it—i.e. spokespeople for the Welsh Government—yet when we, as Welsh Assembly Members, wish to have sight of that report, we are denied that opportunity. Indeed, in First Minister's questions, when I was here at the end of January questioning the First Minister on the report, I was told that I was seeking to 'out' people who had given evidence to that inquiry. Far from it—at the end of the day, that would be the last thing that anyone would wish to do. Where people have requested that confidentiality, that confidentiality, as the motion specifies this afternoon, should be respected, and should be guaranteed in fact. 

But I would ask, and I think it's the leader of the house who's responding to the debate this afternoon, if I'm correct in assuming that—. Because one of the things that did come up in the exchange between me and the First Minister at the time was that the First Minister did state in his reply to me that people were asked—and I quote him directly here:

'People are asked to give evidence confidentially.'

So, I would be grateful—. Was that a prerequisite to all witnesses before they gave evidence, that the evidence would be treated confidentially? Because that does seem quite a condition to place on that evidence, in the sure-fire knowledge that you would then have a reason not to make that report available. I'd seek clarity on that statement, please, if it is the leader of the house who is responding to this debate this afternoon. 

I have, since the First Minister's questions of 30 January, written to the Permanent Secretary expressing my concerns around the answers of First Minister's questions of that day, in particular around the evidence that was gathered by the inquiry and subsequent Welsh Assembly written questions that have come back indicating further sources of information that I sought clarity about, to see whether they were also included in the inquiry. My letters of 30 January and 31 January have gone unanswered to date. Again, I do not think that is a satisfactory position to be in, one month nearly after those letters were sent, that I have to date—. I haven't even received an acknowledgement, I have to say, and so some form of acknowledgement or response would be appreciated.

Hence that's why we're standing here today debating this very subject, because I cannot even elicit a response from the Permanent Secretary to letters that I have sent over a month ago. Indeed, in that intervening month, I've had written questions back from the First Minister when I have asked about the guidance around this inquiry and, indeed, the guidance that prohibited the publication of the report. The First Minister referred to the established procedures around leak investigations that are well understood by the civil service, and have been cited by the Permanent Secretary as reasons not to proceed with publication. And I still have not received my request for sight of those regulations, and how those regulations have been interpreted, and that was at the beginning of February. 

This is a highly sensitive and emotive subject. It is one of four reports. I believe that we need to set the precedent as an Assembly that this report should see the light of day, and we as Assembly Members do have the right to look at that report, understand that report and its conclusions. That is a basic right, I would say. As a legislature and as an Assembly, we should be voting in favour of this motion this afternoon to make sure that we set that precedent and that report is made available to us as Assembly Members. Nothing less will do, and I urge Members in the Chamber today to support the motion that is before you, and ultimately allow the sunshine of transparency to shine on this report as a basic prerequiste, so that we can set the precedent for further reports that we know will be coming before us once the QC and the James Hamilton reports have reported as well. That is why I urge this Chamber to support the motion that is before you.