The next item is the Welsh Conservatives debate. Before we begin the debate, I'd like to remind Members of the sub judice rule set out in Standing Order 13.15. The north Wales coroner opened an inquest on 13 November 2017 in relation to our late colleague Carl Sargeant. This inquest has been adjourned, but remains active. Members must not, in this debate, make any comments that may create a risk of prejudice to the inquest.

To open the debate, I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies and Rhun ap Iorwerth. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Cynnig NDM6668 Paul Davies, Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Calls on the Welsh Government’s Permanent Secretary to publish, with appropriate redactions to ensure anonymity of witnesses, the report into her investigation on 'whether there is any evidence of a prior unauthorised sharing of information—i.e. a "leak"—by the Welsh Government of information relating to the recent Ministerial reshuffle', as described in recent media reports.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to move the motion in the name of my colleague Paul Davies on the order paper today that:

'Calls on the Welsh Government’s Permanent Secretary to publish, with appropriate redactions to ensure anonymity of witnesses, the report into her investigation on "whether there is any evidence of a prior unauthorised sharing of information—i.e. a 'leak'—by the Welsh Government of information relating to the recent Ministerial reshuffle", as described in recent media reports.'

I would hope that this motion today will gain the support of the Assembly, because it merely seeks to do what we as Assembly Members time and time again expect in our role, which is to scrutinise organisations that have had an allegation levelled against them that has been inquired into and a report complied. It is our duty as Assembly Members then to exercise that role of scrutiny over the organisation to understand the events that led up to the accusation, the methodology that put the report together, the conclusions, and, ultimately, whether any actions need to be taken. That, to me, would seem to be a pretty reasonable request of anyone that had published a report that, sadly, no-one has had a chance to see.

Obviously, the events that have led to the publication of this report have been a matter of great public debate and interest. I have to say, in the 11 years that I have been an Assembly Member, I don't think—in virtually every cordon that I've gone to, people have spoken about the events around the Cabinet reshuffle, which doesn't normally, in Welsh political terms, gather that much interest. But, because of the tragic circumstances that flowed from it, obviously people have taken a great interest in this particular aspect.

I don't propose to talk about any of the other inquiries that are currently ongoing. I don't think that it would be at all appropriate to do that. But we do know for a fact that the Permanent Secretary's report is there sitting in Cathays Park, we do know that the investigation has been completed, but what we do not know is how the outcomes were arrived at and, in particular, any recommendations that might flow from that report to tighten up any future scenarios that might lead to such consequences.

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.    

I rise to support this motion. I think there's an important principle at stake here. The findings of this inquiry are a matter of public interest and are important, as we've heard. As a result, in my view, it should be made public, with the caveats that have already been mentioned on the need to redact names and so on and so forth.

Now, it has been uncomfortable to have to go back and look at the Nolan principles; those seven principles that are we are all to adhere to. I'm sure that we all read them every night before going to bed, but they are very pertinent in this context, because openness is one of those principles. Openness: it's simple. It's simple: we should operate and make decisions in an open and transparent manner, and we shouldn't withhold information from the public unless there are legal reasons for doing that. Well, that is one principle that is at risk of not being adhered to in this context.

Leadership—showing leadership is another principle. Holders of public office should promote and support these principles through leadership and by example. We must show that leadership and lead by example in terms of openness. It also states, by the way, that 'leadership' means being willing to challenge bad practice, which, unfortunately, is what the opposition parties are having to do in the Chamber this afternoon.

Without openness and transparency through the publication of this report, the public's perception naturally will be that there is something to hide. In the absence of the publication of this report, I do feel that, at the very least, there should be an opportunity to have an extraordinary meeting of the Committee for Scrutiny of the First Minister in order to scrutinise this process and the actions of the First Minister, otherwise, where is the accountability? Where is the accountability? Accountability—do you remember that? That is another of the fundamental principles that we all in public life should adhere to, and without that I fear that we will be doing a grave injustice to those people who have put their trust in us to represent them.

Now, I was shocked a few weeks ago by the slightly patronising way in which these votes were described—that they are advisory votes that don't commit the Government to take action. Of course, that is true, but I saw that line appearing once again from a source in the media this morning. It does raise the question as to where this leaves democracy, where it leaves democratic accountability, and our role not just as opposition parties, but each and every one of us as Members of this institution. Hearing comments such as that makes me even more determined to ensure that the First Minister should be accountable through a scrutiny committee or through any other means. If the report isn't published, then there is a failure of the test. If there is no sufficient accountability in the Chamber, then that test has also failed. Therefore I do feel that we have to look at a scrutiny committee having an opportunity to consider this.

I will conclude by echoing a point that I have made in the past.

It's a broader point that I'll conclude with about the ministerial code and its relationship, or actually its non-relationship, with the code of conduct for Assembly Members and the role of the standards commissioner. It's been said before: many of us feel it isn't right that the First Minister is judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the ministerial code. My fear on this is that there will always be, when you have a hirer and firer in charge, an element of politics and personalisation, which could get in the way of some of these processes. I'm not saying it happens all the time, I'm not saying it's at the forefront of those considerations, but it's there. Maybe way back in the background, maybe subconsciously, the risk is—and it's a real risk—that it is there. So, we have two parallel regimes, one presided over, as I say, by the hirer and firer, which is bound to carry some of that personalised context and political context, and another that is wholly independent, which is our own code of conduct as Assembly Members and the standards commissioner. I would much prefer that we had one standards regime for all of us.

The standards committee is actually revisiting the code of conduct following recent events and we're already, after just one evidence session, getting a clear message back from a number of external organisations and interested stakeholders that the current landscape is confused, it's complicated. Where do you go? Do you go to the standards commissioner? Is it in relation to the code of conduct? Do you go to the First Minister's office? Is it in relation to the ministerial code? Is it a party-political issue? Expecting complainants to navigate their way through all of that makes it, of course, much less likely that those people with genuine concerns and complaints actually pursue them. That's the last thing, I'm sure, we'd all want. So, what message is withholding this report sending out to those people and other people? Is it right that we have a regime where the First Minister is effectively asking the questions and answering his own questions? I don't believe it is. If Carwyn Jones has nothing to hide then he should have nothing to fear from publishing that report. 

I rise to support this motion this afternoon and it's difficult to see how anybody could, in good conscience, oppose it. What possible argument could there be for not wanting to publish this report with all its limitations and redactions? In a previous incarnation, I had a responsibility on behalf of the UK Government for issuing public interest immunity certificates, which meant that you kept something confidential for reasons of national security or other important national interest consideration. There is no such consideration that could conceivably be advanced to justify the maintenance of secrecy in relation to this report. I can see that there are reasons of Government insecurity why they would not wish to see it published, but there can certainly be no reason of national security that would justify the continuation of secrecy.

Now, that's not to say that I think that we will learn very much when this report is published. I've had experience of inquiries into leaks, or alleged leaks, from Government on many occasions in the past and internal inquiries never, ever get to the truth of them. The truth of the matter here is that senior civil servants are not, by nature, trained to get at the truth in inquiries of this kind. We don't know how far and wide the Permanent Secretary's inquiries have gone. We don't know to what extent she applied some kind of forensic zeal to the evidence that she was able to examine. When these things are conducted behind closed doors, these pieces of information, which enable us to evaluate how deep and detailed the inquiry has been, simply don't become available. So, I'm not expecting anything very much to arise from this and, indeed, the series of inquiries that have been set up have been deliberately designed, I think, not to enable us to get to the truth.

Otherwise, if we had had an overarching inquiry that was undertaken by an obviously independent person, such as a Queen's Counsel, then we might have got somewhere, but given the multiplicity of inquiries and the different terms of reference, all set by the Government, which is itself being investigated, apparently, we are not likely to get at the truth. Permanent secretaries are not by nature trained to be sleuths, nor are they particularly adversarial in the skills that they bring to the task. That's no criticism of the Permanent Secretary in this case or, indeed, in any the other case; that's merely a matter of fact. And consequently, she's not, with all her abilities and obvious strengths, best fitted to carry out the task with which she has been entrusted. The one thing we do know is that secrecy is the shield of injustice and the handmaiden of abuse of power and I can see no reason why, in this particular instance, this inquiry's result should not be published.

We know that, unfortunately, in the Labour Party at the minute there are all sorts of internal shenanigans going on—I don't want to go into them in any depth in this debate because it would be beyond the terms of reference of what we're here discussing. But there is a nastiness that from time to time enters politics in other parties as well, and I think that what we're dealing with here is an example of that and we should all, actually, want to get to the bottom of it. I've been on the receiving end of similar kind of treatment more than once in the course of my political career and Governments of the day never ever want you to get to the truth. And it isn't necessarily the Ministers themselves; it often people who are exceeding their authority thinking that they're doing something that their Ministers would approve of who are responsible. The whole special adviser system itself is geared towards this. It's usually some staffer who is responsible for this kind of bile that is poured out upon the body politic. I've seen it in the Conservative Party, and I think we're now seeing it in the Labour Party as well.

And so, I hope, in the course of this debate, the seekers after truth, the tribunes of transparency, the rooters out of injustice in the Labour party—in the Labour group in this Assembly—will come to our aid and say that for them, and their party too, they do want to get to the truth of this matter, that they do want the reputation of Government to be sustained and, indeed, enhanced and, more to the point, that they want to see this Assembly as the tribune of the people of Wales get to the truth of this matter and establish its own reputation as a true representative of the people and the representative of truth and justice.

I never wanted to have a role in this story. Carl Sargeant was a valued colleague of mine and I remain deeply upset about his death. But as my name has been mentioned, I believe I should give my own account. I am certain in my own mind that the text message I received was gossip on the day of a reshuffle. As Andrew R.T. Davies has accepted in his opening speech, there's often chatter around the reshuffle and that's how I treated the text. It was not from an official source and, in fact, I didn't treat it seriously until I saw the statement Carl himself issued later that day. I didn't pass on what I heard to any journalist, but told my colleagues at the first opportunity of the text message I received and I gave evidence to the leak inquiry as requested. As I said, I never wanted a role in any of this, and I believe I've acted properly.

There have been calls for me to say who sent me the text message. I have not done so and I will not do so, because I don't wish to contribute to a trail of breadcrumbs that can lead to the identification of any of the people who came forward. I understand the frustration that more information from the report has not been published, but I think it is right that the full leak inquiry report will now be considered by the independent inquiry. It will be for Paul Bowen QC to weigh the significance of all this and judge whether the way this information was handled is relevant to the events that followed.

The opposition parties are pushing for a redacted version of the report to be published, but even a redacted version poses a risk that the anonymity of the complainants will be jeopardised. And, Llywydd, the women have been forgotten in all of this. We will never be able to fairly test their allegations. That is neither fair on them, nor fair on Carl. But at the very least, let's not make the situation worse by directly, or indirectly, threatening their right to anonymity. This whole tragedy has become the subject of political game playing and I want no part in it. There are two more inquiries, and an inquest, yet to report. These processes need to be allowed to complete. Diolch.

I'm not pleased to have to take part in this debate this afternoon at all, and it's with a heavy heart that I rise to participate in it. I'm sorry that the previous speaker feels that this about political point scoring; it's not at all. This is about, in my view, a need to get to the truth about what happened, a need to understand the processes that the Permanent Secretary has been through, the scope of her investigation into the allegations of a leak of the information from the Welsh Government prior to the reshuffle taking place—and I don't think we have any answers at the moment. In fact, I think that the statement that was put out by the Permanent Secretary on conclusion of her work gave rise to even more ambiguity, actually, about what happened. I don't think that I can have confidence in the outcome of that piece of work because of the statement that was issued. I think that the Permanent Secretary owes it to the Welsh Government and owes it to all Members of this Assembly, and the people of Wales, to share as much as she can about the way in which her work was conducted so that we can have some confidence in those processes.

This has been the only time while I have been a Member of the Assembly—and there have been many reshuffles that have taken place—where I have seen information about Cabinet appointments trailed in this way; I have not seen it before. Of course we see speculation from time to time, of course we do, but I think the impression that is out there in the Twittersphere, and on social media, and, indeed, some of the comments that we've heard from journalists since this particular reshuffle took place, make it absolutely clear that there was not just speculation taking place, there was information being shared prior to the reshuffle, prior to that information even being shared with those people who were being appointed, and those people who were being dismissed from the First Minister's Cabinet. I think that that is a great shame and we need to understand precisely what has happened.

We know that the Permanent Secretary made it clear that there were no unauthorised leaks, in her words, but we don't know whether she considered the evidence from Twitter, which, of course, was dismissed by the First Minister rather flippantly, I have to say, because, let's face it, many people have been taken to court because of things that they have said on Twitter, and actually convicted of things. So, I think it's really important that we don't dismiss this evidence that is out there, and we need to understand whether the Permanent Secretary agreed with the First Minister that that was not evidence, or whether she actually incorporated it within the scope of her work. Like you, Lee Waters, I don't want people to be named and shamed, as it were, in terms of anybody who may have made allegations; that's not the purpose of today's debate at all. We simply want to understand how we can have confidence in something that has taken place, and at the moment, it's very opaque indeed.

Now, I do welcome the fact that the Welsh Government has made it clear that the QC-led inquiry will have a copy of this report. I think that's entirely appropriate, given the scope of the work that Paul Bowen and his team will have to do. 

Will the Member give way there?

Of course.

I'm grateful. I understand the point he's making, and I understand the point that Lee Waters was also making, but the problem I think for us as an Assembly coming together is that the Bowen inquiry, as I understand it, still has no agreed terms of reference. It certainly has no timetable that we understand, and it layers another perspective on top of the perspective of this report, and therefore it will be increasingly difficult to understand the point that he's been making, whether there was an authorised sharing of information in advance. That will be lost if we just put it into another inquiry, which we still don't understand the purpose of.

That's right. And, of course, it's the job of this National Assembly to hold our Government to account, and that means all parts of the Government, not just the political parts, but, indeed, the functioning parts—the officials who lie behind the politicians who we debate with here in this National Assembly Chamber. I have to say, I think it was very discourteous of the Permanent Secretary to make statements on the outcome of her inquiry, her work, her investigation into this leak, without actually presenting a formal statement to the National Assembly, to Assembly Members. We had to read about the outcome of this in media reports.

Now, I'm sorry, I just don't think that that is acceptable, and I think we need to better understand, and I think she needs to make herself available to speak to Assembly Members, whether that's privately or in an Assembly committee of some sort, in order to give an account as to how she conducted the inquiry. I think that would be useful. Let's face it, we, as Assembly Members, have private documents shared with us on a regular basis in terms of our committee work and other things that we do. It should be perfectly reasonable, I think, to have the Permanent Secretary appear before a panel of Assembly Members, whether that's the standards committee, or whoever, I don't know, but we need to get to the bottom of what happened, we need to understand how this information got out into the public domain before those people who were being dismissed from the Cabinet actually knew about it.

So, it's an incredible discourtesy to this Assembly not to see a copy of the redacted report. There are redacted reports published by the public sector all of the time on very contentious issues, including things such as the Tawel Fan issue in north Wales, where patients' details were shared—redacted without names. And I think we need a copy of this report in the public domain too.

I call on the leader of the house, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. This Government completely agrees that there is a purpose in being both open and transparent in these matters. But the general framework of the law for approaching this question is very clear. Where the publication of information is likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs generally, or any investigative process, then there is a public interest assessment about whether to disclose or whether to withhold disclosure.

Clearly, if a leaked report were to be published, this could prejudice future leak inquiries by undermining confidence in the process of the investigation, and individuals being less prepared to provide evidence. If that were to happen, it would not be in the public interest. Whereas here, there is the additional element of ongoing inquiries, there are further potential risks to the overall integrity of the process—[Interruption.]

I'm very grateful for the leader of the house taking the intervention. One simple question, which I would like the Permanent Secretary asked, and you may have asked this on behalf of the Government to the Permanent Secretary, is: has she approached any of the witnesses to ask whether they are content with their information being shared in a redacted way that protects their anonymity?

This is about more than just this leaked report; this is about the integrity of future investigations and future leaked reports.

Whereas here, there is the additional element of ongoing inquiries, there are further potential risks to the overall integrity of the process if information is put in the public domain on a piecemeal basis. This is, however, in operational terms, a matter for the Permanent Secretary. She has confirmed that a copy of the leaked report will be made available to the Queen's Counsel conducting the independent investigation. That is the right process to follow in this matter, in our view. Diolch.

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. The brevity of the Government's response will be noted and people will come to a judgment, I'm sure, about whether that afforded this Assembly the proper courtesy.

I conclude this debate by speaking in favour of today's motion, a motion tabled to seek maximum transparency around the questions of if or how specific information was shared prior to the recent ministerial reshuffle. The leak inquiry by the Permanent Secretary concluded there was no unauthorised sharing of information regarding the reshuffle, but in order to seek maximum transparency, we believe that we require the publication of the report as a whole. I believe that argument has been laid out very clearly across the political parties in opposition this afternoon. 

Which questions were asked? We need to find out. How were conclusions reached? If there was no unauthorised sharing of information, was there authorised sharing of some information, which would, by definition, not be a leak? Alternatively, if it was found that no sharing of information took place at all, what sparked the speculation regarding the reshuffle? I don't believe we've had a November reshuffle before, not in recent years, certainly. Was this investigated?

Publishing the inquiry report would be a clear way to seek answers to such questions and to provide the transparency that we need. We need total confidence—we, as the public in Wales, as much as us as parliamentarians—in the outcome of the inquiry. Looking at the wider picture, what we're seeking here, all of us, surely, are means, whatever they need be, to strengthen confidence in the systems and procedures of Government and, indeed, of this Assembly.

Members will note that the motion refers to redactions. My party's view, and it is a view we've heard elsewhere, is that those redactions are absolutely essential to ensure anonymity of witnesses, and we're satisfied that even a redacted report could help to draw us out of this cycle of endless questions that never seem to be given satisfactory answers.

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

One thing that could easily be prepared would be a statement of the methodology that was used, and detail on the scope of the evidence that was considered, without naming anybody or any pieces of evidence. We're just in the dark about everything.

Yes, I agree, and that reflects the comments I made earlier about needing to know how questions were asked, what questions were asked and how conclusions were reached.

Key questions still remain unanswered about the circumstances surrounding the reshuffle. I've seen texts this week, which I understand will be made available to the QC-led inquiry into events leading up to Carl Sargeant's death, showing he believed he knew that reshuffle was coming. Those messages between Carl and a friend correctly predicted the reshuffle would happen. But how had speculation reached that point?

I worked for nearly two decades as a political journalist. I've got a pretty good idea how a flake of speculation can grow into a large snowball. But how was one Cabinet Secretary in this case seemingly and so firmly identified as one whose time in Government was to come to an end? We are some way short of finding answers to such questions, and a vote today to publish the Permanent Secretary's reports could, perhaps, go some of the way to giving us those answers.

I'm grateful to you for taking the intervention, and I note the comments from the leader of the house, responding on the Government's position on this, but it's a complete contradiction to the answer that the First Minister gave to me in First Minister's questions on 30 January, where he said—and I've got the Record here in front of me, and I've read it while you've been speaking. It says quite clearly the only reason for not publishing was to keep the confidentiality of the witnesses. It did not make any reference to the QC inquiry, it did not make any reference to prejudicing further inquiries, and so that is why the motion talks of redactions. This is the second change of message we've had from the Government bench on this important inquiry. Do you share my disappointment at that change of direction that the Government have indicated here again today?

I certainly do, and you make the point correctly, of course, that redactions do get around the issue that was raised by the First Minister initially.

I'll conclude. I do hope the Assembly will support this motion today. I'll make an important point—if today's motion is supported, Government should act on the Assembly's will. I remind you of a recent comment from a Welsh Government source,

'Opposition day votes are—in many ways—meaningless. They aren't binding and don't have any bearing on government policy or delivery.'

This is not acceptable on any occasion; it's certainly not acceptable today. As parliamentarians, I hope we all want the fullest possible public explanation for the events that have taken place. We know that the various other inquiries are taking place, including that of the independent adviser into whether the ministerial code was breached and the QC-led inquiry. Those investigations—those questions are not in the remit of today's motion, but I do hope that greater transparency can, somehow, be achieved around all of those events. 

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will therefore defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.