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.